POLL: Favorite D&D version

Remove all ads!

And I think this is . If this were correct, Wizards would not be spending money on the books.

 

F***. I had this big long post of an answer, but it got eaten by board maintenace. Well, I'll try again, I suppose.

Really? I played a sorcerer in 3e and it was every single level. I enjoyed playing for a while, until I started recognizing things stolen unabashedly from other games like Might & Magic. TBH, I was offended that they would just throw things together and slap the D&D name on it, so I quit.
......................................................................
Addressing Drew's points:

-backstab can't be done at range:
Reaching a ways, are we? Meaning: you can't stab someone from across the room. I know you were probably talking about sneak attacks, but there was something similar in 2e as well; it was called surprise, and everyone could use it, not just rogues. A sneak attack is a combination of the two ideas, but IMO they're not mutually inclusive; you can have surprise without a perfectly placed shot.

-wizards were far too overpowered:
At later stages, yes. But in the meantime, they're wimps. Specialists were typically not used because of the stat requirements and the fact that they had more opposition schools than in the cRPGs, so a 1st level mage would have a single tiny MM and then be defenseless for the rest of the day. You don't just camp out and sleep in the middle of the day to get your spells back either; you have to wait until night.

-ranged combat is pretty weak unless you happened to be an elven archer:
I wouldn't say that. Some of the weak enemies you meet at low levels can be taken out with a single arrow, ending the fight before it has even begun. At higher levels, it gives you an advantage, allowing you to injure your opponent before he reaches you and giving you an edge. But your stronger characters are supposed to be meleeing anyway.

-two weapon fighting was far more effective than wielding a single blade:
Yep, that one is BS. But typically it didn't come up for me since you usually need a shield or Single Weapon Style for the AC just to survive. (Well, my players did anyway. )

-heavily armored warriors were just as agile as unarmored warriors:
Not quite realistic, but I think it was more a matter of how well you could move in the armor. Even a small movement could mean the difference between that sword slipping between the plates of your armor or clanging off the edge. And your tanking characters will probably be focusing more on CON than DEX. Still, I think it was a sacrifice of realism for simplicity.

-only warriors got the benefit of high constitution:
Yeah, that one puzzled me too. Perhaps it was an attempt to get other classes to focus more on other attributes. *shrug*

-the only person that had half a prayer against a psionicist in battle was another psionicist:
Don't forget psionic monsters! Really, any supplement requires balancing on the two sides of the DM's screen. Psionicists were a little over-the-top, but could be balanced with the appropriate adjustments to your campaign. A psionicist here, a Ki-rin there, a group of intellect devourers rampaging through a kingdom, etc. If you've ever played in the Dark Sun campaign setting, there's so much psionics there that it's no longer an issue.
......................................................................

Well, some classes were better than others, but they were also harder to get. Unlike in cRPGs, in PnP you had to roll good enough stats to earn one of those better classes, you couldn't just select them at random. Shuffling scores around to get a class was a part of character creation, and you had to be creative with it to get what you wanted. You couldn't just grab a point here and there to min-max your way to a paladin, you had to actually get it; if you didn't have at least one 17 or 18 in your roll, you were SOL. The rarity made playing one of those characters a special experience that you could treasure, not just another one to throw on the heap.

Now don't get me wrong, 3e is a decent game. But half of the stuff that they took out from the previous version were what made D&D. 3.5e might be better at that (I don't know, I haven't tried it), but it's still born of something that does not deserve the name IMO, and I won't play it.

 

Pure spellcasters are still overpowered, but now it's the druids and clerics who win first prize.

The sorcerer is the only exception.

 

An arrow can pierce the heart as easily as a dagger. Rogues should be able to snipe.

In 3e a 20th level fighter has a fair chance against a 20th level mage. Not so in 2e. 3e just has a lot more across the board balancing.

A round lasts a full minute. The assertion 2e makes that an archer couldn't pop off more attacks at range than a melee fighter can at close range is just stupid. Remember that blocks, feints, and parrys are all supposedly happening during that round. An archer should be able to pop off at least 3 times as many shots since he isn't doing any of this. 3E adresses this somewhat (Still not well enough in my opinion.....but better) with feats like many shot and the like but in 2e all you get is that one measly extra attack.

 

Ah, but the arrow is not guided as the dagger is; any number of random events can change the path of the arrow or its target with no opportunity for adjustment. The strength of the backstab is the point-blank range leaving no time for error. And rogues shouldn't be the only ones who can snipe; I play an elven archer most often, and if anyone should be able to snipe at range, it's them.

Very true, but a 1st level mage has no chance at all against a 1st level fighter. Mages pay their price early but reap the rewards in the end. Fighters barely pay, and so barely gain.

Yes, they should. 30 seconds between attacks is ludicrous in the heat of battle. Perhaps as a trained squad firing a volley in unison, or an archer firing into melee being careful to pick his shots so as not to hit his comrades, but normally it should be a bit higher. Hell, if you're good you can ready a muzzleloader that fast (at least, my dad can).

[ January 28, 2006, 03:30: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

The point of backstab is that rogues know where to hit their enemies to get the best effect. This would hold true with archery at a close enough range. It doesn't make any sense that rogues can't do this in 2e. The target has less chance of figuring out they are about to die as well, since the rogue will be harder to see or hear when farther away.

 

I just realized that 2E D&D had to deal with people like Jack Chick and Pat Robertson years ago. Now D&D gamers are defending the game against those who played the old edition. Kind of funny. But I figure that's how you can tell 3E and 3.5E have been more of a commercial success.

I mean: this

 

@Drew:
You've missed the point entirely. Knowing where to hit someone means nothing if you can't guarantee that your weapon will hit the target in that exact spot. You would have to be an expert archer to hit such a small target at range while taking into account the wind and everything else that could affect the shot in even the small time it takes the shot to reach the target, including things you can only guess at. Rogues aren't that good with a bow; heck, they can't even specialize. Allowing a "called shot" for backstab at close range might be an idea, but more than 50 yards would be ridiculous; there's just too much room for something to suddenly change.

@Oaz:
The principle is simple: those who care about something will argue for it.

No, D&D gamers play the "old edition". What you're referring to is a perfectly good game in its own right that got the D&D name slapped on it for marketing purposes (or possibly because WotC was too lazy to come up with a new name to go with their new game). And really, it goes both ways; or haven't you been paying attention?

 

Nice, Oaz. 2e Ad&d wasn't perfect but in its time it was a commercial success. Todays commercial success build on yesterday's. Maybe I like them, maybe I don't. That's my opinion and my choice. Sometimes I have to give in to the now, sometimes I don't. I like my halflings plump and hairy. End of story for me.

 

Who cares about realism. I thought the purpose of DnD was to make unreal heroes that can laugh at a dragons face, fire arrows Legolas-style and dodge 10 ogres swinging at you at the same time. Where's the fun if your hero is ordinary or "realistic"? O_o If s/he was supposed to be "realistic" then get rid of those spells my friend, drop of that dagger for a sword and stop trying to charm that bear-- It will own you.

 

What I'm saying is that it's pretty funny how gamers get defensive or possessive over the games that they play. A new edition comes out, and some gamers just say, "Oh, that's not real so-and-so game," or otherwise don't accept it because it doesn't fit in with their idea of what's a "good" game. The old game, I think, is part of a person's identity, so people can develop an immediate reaction to something just because it's new or foreign. (And really, how do you determine if a new edition is "deserving" of a name if you haven't played it yourself?)

New gamers, of course, are a lot more likely to throw in with the new edition, which has new books published, etc. 2E, on the other hand, is static, and the very reason people don't play is because it's no longer official. That's not to say 2E is somehow superior or inferior to any other edition, but it's worth noting that when people are talking about D&D, when it comes to the gaming section of the bookstore, is 3E.

Personally, I do like 3.5E. It's a good system, and it has both its ups and downs. But I feel no need to justify its existence to anyone because different people like different things. It just seems, that for one reason or another, 3.5E D&D is the RPG enjoying the most success.

[ January 30, 2006, 00:41: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

You can't. But I have played it myself, and so am in a better position to judge.
I am the all-knowing Dungeon and Dragon Master, and I hearby declare that 3e is not worthy of the name. - So sayeth the wise-a$$ Felinoid.

 

@Felinoid: I didn't miss the point. What I'm saying is that if a rogue has all the time he needs to take the shot and the target doesn't know it's coming, than the rogue has as much of a chance of making it at close range with a bow than at melee range with a dagger. I'm not much of an archer, but even I hit the bullseye from 30 feet.

 

Then you just ignored it; that's even worse.

Wow, 10 yards; and here I was already talking about 50... Point-blank range (since you mentioned 30 feet) would certainly qualify, I would think, and 50 yards is the extent of "short range" (i.e. no penalty range) for a short bow. I'd say that's pretty fair, if you ever bother to consider my point that just because the target doesn't know the thief's there doesn't mean he's going to stand stock-still like your bullseye does. NPCs have stuff to do too, ya know! They're not just static targets waiting to be killed; give them at least the tiniest benefit of doubt that they might suddenly remember something they needed to do, or even have an itch from time to time. It's just that kind of random, uncontrollable thing that makes a melee backstab SO much more reliable than a missile backstab.

EDIT:
Um, incidentally, I can't find any restriction to melee weapons in the backstab description. All it says in the PHB is that the thief needs to be behind his unaware victim, who has to be humanoid. There's nothing that really forbids using a short bow and arrows for a backstab, as there is nothing forbidding a quarterstaff. I'll look further into the Complete Thieves' Handbook; this could be interesting...

EDIT2: Bah, nothing at all. Half of the book is dedicated to guilds.

[ January 30, 2006, 06:23: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

Wow, this is getting ridiculous. Shhh children, calm down, Little Billy likes his bear with a blue hat and Little Johnny likes his with a red hat. We like different things. Lets put our differences aside and not be cruel to one another for their opinions, I thought we came here to ask what was your favorite, not berate your non-favorite fanboy style.

*puts reassuring hand over everyone's shoulders*

Its okay...

 

You're kidding me, right? Does this ring a bell?

It was so completely I didn't even bother to respond to it. And now you have the cajones to talk to us about not berating the opposing edition when we're just discussing backstabs?

 

@Felinoid: In 3e you must be very close to the target to be able to make a sneak attack. I wasn't saying that a rogue should be able to make a sneak attack at a range he couldn't see his target's vitals.

EDIT: One more thing.....JiggaJay only suggested that we not get nasty with each other due to differences of opinion. He didn't suggest that he, I, or you were right. What did he do to deserve such beligerence?

 

Ah. We're in agreement then. I just wonder what TSR's official ruling on short bow backstabs would have been (or possibly what it was).

...implying that we were (unless he was talking to Oaz ), and being rather patronizing about it, I might add. Combine that with his hyprocrisy after posting THE worst attack on 2e in the thread, and my patience was gone.

 

Anyhoo, I feel like adding my two penneth worth. Although I should probably add the caveat that I'm purely a CRPGer, so can my assessment of the various ruelsets is purely based upon the relevant games that use them...

For my money, the way the 3e games handle stats is sooo much better than 2e, where everything was very random and difficult to judge. Frequently, 15 or 16 points were required in a stat before you attained any real advantage over someone with only 8-9 points. That 3e sorted this out so that stats give an obvious, logical bonus as they're incremented was probably its most important contribution over 2e. Why 2e stat bonus progression worked as it did was unfathomable and acted as a greater incentive to min/maxing, especially as the stats you began with were also (broadly speaking) what you ended up with.

Strength was probably the nadir of 2e's system, with no real difference between someone with 8 STR and someone with 15. Warrior-only exceptional strength and ridiculous jumps in benefits (e.g. non-warriors getting a 1 point boost from 18 to 19 STR received a disproportionately huge bonus to THAC0 and damage) made the whole thing seem painfully arbitrary, as though no real thought had gone into the system in the first place, necessatating the bolting-on of various inelegant appellations to the original ruleset in a half-arsed attempt to restore balance. The only thing the saved the 2e games here was (ironically) the dice-rolling for stats, as it was always possible to just re-roll until you got a half-decent bonus. Although, this led to a problem with "realism" (particularly in BG2) that you tended to get characters who had highly extremal values in some stats, for the simple reason that they needed to in order to get any kind of bonus at all. Yoshimo's STR stat is a good example, here. For a massive 17 STR in 2e, he gets +1 THAC0 (let's just take it as near enough equivalent to AB, eh?) and +1 damage. He'd get that with just 12 STR in 2e, which makes much more sense as a typical rogue/thief's* STR stat.

*Delete whichever name comes from the ruleset you hate most.

3e manages a much better job of dealing with stats in a transparent, easily understood manner, then (btw, I include the fact that higher saves, AC and AB are better as part of this - the THAC0 and AC system in 2e could be very confusing for a newbie). Of course, no system is perfect (hands up: who really believed I was going to favour one side in the argument? ) and there are some problems. IWD2 gives the best example here, as it's easily the game which encourages min/maxing in every department so much more than any other. But then NWN came along, and the exact opposite was true, with minimums "capped" (or should that be "shoe-ed"? ) at 8, and costs for increasing stats too far doubling or even trebling, balance became the way forward, and you no longer had to feel that twinge of guilt for not giving your character 18 STR, CON & DEX, because you knew that such monstrosities just weren't necessary. And let's not forget that INT matters now; it's not just for wizards. You could even argue that INT is now a rogue's prime stat rather than DEX (which makes more sense, imo).

Obviously, there are also the benefits of the shiny new multiclassing system, which allows for greater customisability of charcters. 2e could be rather limiting in this regard (although there was still plenty of depth there) and having that flexibility ingrained in the ruleset is simply better than having to rely upon a character class you want to play maybe appearing in the next rules update. Instead you could create them (with a few exceptons) yourself, using a cunning combination of existing classes.

To a great extent, multiclassing goes hand-in-hand with the new, looser, alignment restrictions, which (generally) make more sense. Although I'm still not sold on the idea of a truly multiclass paladin/rogue (reformed character, maybe, but that's different), most of the changes are for the better. It's certainly better than BG1&2's straitjacket, where "evil" Shadow Druids just didn't make sense and Rangers were overly wed to good alignments. O.K., that works for the stereotype of the wilderness man helping lost travellers, but what about the poacher who uses his knowledge of the wild to exploit nature for his own gain? More alignment freedom means more freedom to RP, and that's definitely a good thing.

Of course, I'm trying to stay objective here, and 3e does have its problems, no doubt. Firstly, I'm undecided on the BAB/Attacks progression, especially in NWN - HotU. Basically, the majority of the problem is associated with the restriction to 4 Attacks/Round and BAB after level 20 not being counted, as this leads to any character who wants to melee being forced to take warrior levels, and early. Particularly with Fighter/mages, it would be nice to be able to take a more even development without being horribly penalised later on. Linked is also the issue of AB swelling to such obscene levels (at least on your first attack, anyway) that +magic armours become more and more necessary to give sufficient protection, which leads to either:

</font>

1. AC eventually becomes irrelevant to all but a handful of bizarre, min-maxed characters who focus only upon increasing their defence to act as decoys to such an extent that that is their sole purpose. (e.g. IWD2)
2. Ever more powerful items become necessary, so as to ensure that warriors can actually stay alive long enough on the frontlines to inflict some damage. This gives the impression of a game world chock full of master artificers, all of whom have nothing better to do with their day than churn out semingly endless quantities of Full Plate +5. (e.g. NWN - HotU)

Obviously, neither situation is ideal, and I'm pretty sure that THAC0 in 2e did manage to balance better at higher levels. Of course, it was still much harder to work out how likely you were to hit something, but maybe that's why it worked, who knows?

The other major issue I have is DR. I have no problems at all with the use of the x/y system, provided it's done logically. I can see that Damage Reduction is far more sensible a way of representing some creatures' hardiness than a % reduction, in some cases. However, it's worth remembering that DR is a huge part of the reason the NWN OC is such crap unless you play a meathead warrior, who lives simply to do weights and hoon things with a sword the size of a Half-Orc. It really makes the part of a finesse warrior - a style that was properly recognised in 3e - much, much harder to play, and that's a shame. Of course, that's an example of a part of the system being mis-used, so it's perhaps an unfair one. But you get the point.

I'm also ambivalent about the skills system. Whilst I think it makes a great deal of sense for the thieving skills - the percentage system felt too... absolute as a way of comparing one rogue's skills to another's - I'm less sold on it's relevance vis-a-vis the Persuade/Bluff/Intimidate dialogue options. Particularly Intimidate, actually, which I maintain should be strength based. Be honest, who wouldd you be more scared of: a halfling with 6 STR and 18 CHA, or the Half-Orc with 18 STR & 6 CHA? Personally, I'd be a lot more "intimidated" by the Half-Orc. 2e handled this better with it's on-the-fly, ad-hoc stat checks in conversation... it's just a shame it was a feature so underused in BG1&2. IWD1 did this better, but PS:T ruled the roost for this kind of thing. And yes, it is 2e - don't let the fixed number of stat points at start-up & additonal ability points on levelling fool you, that's just to represent Nameless's abilities upon re-re-re-re-...-re-surrection. And let's not forget that carrying boat-loads of skill points over between levels is just plain bonkers, even though we've all done it and probably learnt not to notice anymore. At least IWD2 got this one spot-on.

In conclusion (because this has become less of a post, and more of an essay. chev would be proud! ), I'll say this: 3e has the more logical structure, and makes a lot more sense on first sight than 2e. And let's not forget feats! They can be used for all sorts of things, not just slightly more weapon damage. 2e, whilst it's not clear half the time what's going on, it doesn't matter so much, somehow. Everything's somewhat disorganised, ad-hoc and chaotic, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. In fact, some people even prefer it a bit , eh young Master Felinoid?

My top 2 RPGs are KotOR (bastardised 3e) and BG (pretty much straight-down-the-line 2e). I love them both, and whilst I'd probably pick KotOR as my favourite, that might be more to do with the lightsabres than the ruleset. There's a more "organic" feel to 2e that makes it easier to love, but I can only respect the job they did in rationalising 3e so well. I might just favour 3e for the increased customisability, but I still get narked that some of its limitations just weren't there in 2e, which can leave the impression of a needless step backwards at times. But the ability to build pretty much any character out of the box is just enough to win me over.

And I haven't even mentioned sneak attacks...

 

A poacher is covered under fallen ranger, I believe; with the added benefit that they lose their powers as they should, no longer being a protector of the forest. Knowledge-based abilities still remain (proficiencies and such like tracking and two-weapon style), but the deity-given powers are taken (animal empathy). Even without the empathy, non-weapon proficiencies like Animal Training, Animal Handling, Animal Lore, and Herbalism are available. There's really a whole slew of ranger-appropriate non-weapon proficiencies, so I never have trouble picking one except to decide which ones to get first. A poacher could even be a fighter with those proficiencies...

But yes, there is a bit of a problem with druids. However, I have always held the "druids are restricted to TN" as a mis-application, not unlike the recently discovered possibility of "short bow backstab". You see, the PHB does not actually say that druids have to be True Neutral, just Neutral. I believe TN to be the alignment of the druids' nature deity, but that does not necessarily mean that the druid must be exactly that as well. I think what the restriction was meant to provide was that they just don't get caught up in the eternal struggle between good and evil, but does not mean that they cannot be lawful or chaotic. And with chaotic neutral available, the utterly insane acts of former druids corrupting nature becomes a bit more explainable.

Really, I have a hard time thinking of the Shadow Druid's goals as evil, but rather a bit...misguided. And the clearly unhinged way they go about it (destroying paradise to save it?) really makes me pity them. Some of the Shadow Druids I even believe to even be LN, like the one who comes to warn you when you enter the map. He clearly does not like what is going on, but he respects the chain of command regardless.

Maybe it's just me, but I understand pretty much everything that's going on in 2e rather easily (including quite a number of things that weren't implemented). But I suppose maybe we're just on the same line of , eh? If so, that just further goes to prove that 3e isn't D&D because it isn't as .