State your preference for 2nd or 3rd edition

Remove all ads!

I don't know how much of the corebook you've read, but 3E abstracts the attack roll; it can be a swing of the axe, several jabs with a rapier, etc.

I was going to make other points, but this thread just becomes another example of inter-edition bickering, where people keep viewing the new edition through in terms of the previous one. (I keep thinking about how people decry a new edition of the game as a bastardized version of the old and not a game in its own right.) A recounting of play experience on both sides would be a far better way of judging the games, compared to the insistence of minor points between the two editions.

 

That was one of the things they wanted to change. Locking someone into one mindset is something they didn't want to do. Even with religion, the majority of people have their faith, then they have their every day job, and hobbies on top of that. With the second edition system, you were either religious, employed or having a hobby. In third, it reflects that more readily. Sure some characters are that one dimensional, but most have more than one dimension...

Telling someone's balls or knees from center torso (and thus directing strikes there specifically instead of a generic attack) is the basic skill that a first level rogue gains from the sneak attack. Higher level rogues learn more detailed knowledge and skill in that regard, like the tendons in the knee as opposed to just the knee itself, or the kidney instead of a regular soft spot...

Gut reaction noted. Is it wrong to want to do cool stuff with your character?

I actually agree there. I like the idea of a big fighter with a heavy weapon that hits like a ton of bricks...

But the point is that someone that's spent a lifetime training not only gets more accurate with their strikes, but quicker with them too. For something closer, compare Jet Li to the guy that took Karate for two months then had to give it up because he was too far out of shape...

Again, it's about one dimensional, cardboard feeling characters versus a more dynamic feeling heroes. It's like assuming that every cleric will be 100% healer/missionary, as opposed to more specialized roles in the temple or community. It's like assuming tat every story teller is just a story teller or musician when they have to get their stories somewhere. The dynamics of the game and campaign world such roles aren't straight up cut and dried, so the game needs to reflect that.

How do you figure out realism for 100 foot dragons? Hit points is just a measure of hoe many times you gotta hit something before it doesn't get up and try to kill you. Higher level barbarians are used to doing that...

Perhaps the Jack of all trades approach is more your taste then? You don't need 20 ranks in all skills, but you need more skills than you can max out...

That's the point. Third is a paradigm shift from second.

I've yet to see anyone include Psionics in a campaign in 3rd or 3.5. The fact that it requires another $40 book is one deterent. I bought the book, but still can't get a chance to try it out...

In all, I've found third edition to be more versatile and thus more open to new opportunities...

 

Lets say Mr dual wielding level 20 Ranger has the combat reflexes feat + greater cleave. He finds himself in a situation where 2 enemies are infront of him. And a bunch of goblins or whatever are running bast him (giving him attacks of oppertunities). He does a full round of attacks. Wich is in this case 8 slashes with his weapons. Lets also say he has 20 dex, wich isn`t that unusual for a ranger at level 20. this gives him 5 attacks of opertunity as the enemies race past him. Now we have 13 attacks in that round. Add some cleaves there, lets say two of those just to pick a number. This means he slashes 15 times with his weapons in SIX seconds.........Doesn`t that sound overly lame to any of you?


Also regarding the sneak attack bit.....Does a level 2 rogue know where the vital organs of a shark is? And if he knows it, how come everyone else doesn`t know it as well?
A good idea to solve this is basing what Mr Rogue can sneak attack on his int score. If he has 10 int he can only sneak attack humanoids, if he has 20 int he can sneak attack everything? Just an idea.

 

*Buzz* Wrong. Employment and hobbies were completely separate from class. Though some kits mandated certain types of employment, they were always optional and often hard to even get; most employment was roleplaying, if there was any at all. Hobbies showed up in Secondary Skills, Non-Weapon Proficiencies, and *gasp* roleplaying. Clerics weren't the only ones who could have patron deities, and I usually picked a deity for just about every character I made for, once again, roleplaying.

Basically, 2e MADE you roleplay to have a unique character; it MADE you look deeper. If your idea of expanding your character's personality is to pick skills and feats, by all means go ahead, but I'll stick with the system that actually fires my imagination.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't or shouldn't have it. I'm only saying that it IS anatomical knowledge. The very same thing applies to backstabbing in 2e; you need to know humanoid anatomies for where to hit. It's something thieves learn that perhaps isn't particularly sensical, but I'm just not going to put up with false defenses claiming it not to be what is is...for either system.

Not at all. My problem is deriding a system because it doesn't allow you to turn into Flash cubed.

Granted, but a length of metal is a hell of a lot different than natural weapons. It shouldn't be as fast.

*Buzz* Wrong again. Thank you for playing, and try again when you actually have a clue about the system you're arguing against. If all you look at is the numbers on the paper, you're missing the point of 2e entirely.

It's called common sense. You should really look into that some day.

Having 10 or so ranks in twice as many skills would actually be worse. My only problem with the 2e system is that there's usually around six or eight proficiencies that I want a starting character to have, but usually with warrior types you only get three or four, and then have to wait four levels for the next one. (My wizardly characters usually get close enough that it doesn't bother me much, but I find myself dissatisfied with my warriors' knowledge.) Something between the two systems would be more to my liking.

[Warning about rudeness pending. -Tal]

[ January 06, 2007, 14:01: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Realism? Come on. 2E or 3E have nothing to do with realism (the ranger and the halfling examples in the thread should be proof enough).

I like 2E a lot because it reminds me of the old pnp games (nolstalgia and entirely subjective) and yet for a CPRG 3E offers more combination and more flexibility for a character.

There are many systems which are way better than ADD2 or DnD. I think the D20 system is mediocre and that it doesn't work that well and I'm really pissed off that most RPing universes use it nowadays -even Call of Cthulhu!!!! A shame when the Basic/Runequest system that was used for both Cthulhu and Stormbringer (and a few others) was much better than D and D's nonsensical class system.

What is more frustrating than playing a level one wizard with 4 HP and one spell? What is more silly than having one character with uber AC facing hordes of enemies and not taking a scratch?

With Runequest you started playing with a character that was good enough to hold his ground and you knew that you wouldn't get "levels " or more hitpoints. You actually had to use your skills to improve them (not just kill monsters and get gold).

DnD translates well into CPRG because it uses a certain format (i.e. levels) whatever happens you know that the foes you face are going to be suited to your own level and so you can defeat them (3E has CR). For a CPRG it helps a lot. And if a foe is too powerful there will always be some item/weapon that will help you (think Firkraag in BG2 and the dragonslaying sword right in his dungeon, or Tymofarrar in SoU and the scroll).

I had a lot of fun RPing (various pnp games) with friends who grew up playing ADD. Their reasoning was so conditioned by the game that it took some time before they began to forget most of their old D&D instincts.

At the end of the day what makes a good pnp ruleset? A good GM (or DM if you like) AND good players. And by "good" I mean players who can suspend their disbelief and get into the story.

 

Rawgrim: First, Cleave does not apply to Whirlwind attack or attacks of opportunity. Therefore, when he makes his normal attacks, if there's only two guys in his face, that's 1 extra attack. Second, basic sneak attacks look for weak points or points of articulation. If there is a point where the skin of the shark appears weak to accommodate changing direction, that's where the rogue strikes. That's the point of the sneak attack. They seek out those things. As they get higher up the scale, they get better at that...

Kits. I remember them, they required people to spend $25 a pop to get a book for any class they were interested in. D20 system, by it's basic versatility, enables that without the extra cost. They still accommodate those that want to buy more books, but there are more options in the core books if you explore them...

...only to find out that nobody else gives a rat's ass...

But you pick the feats and skills (even classes) to suit the character that you want, not let the stuff define the character...

But in 2nd Edition the circumstances weere so rare that you almost never got to use the back stab. I played a gnome Illusionist thief to 10/11 level. I was able to back stab twice. This only came by extensive use of my arcane abilities...

That's something I feel to be a failure within the monk class, not the other feats. Remember that the ranger (only 7 attacks, the feat that gives the fourth attack with his off hand is epic, and thus you have to be 21st level to qualify). Remember as well that the 20th level character is 1 in over 5 million. He's worked his ass off to get that. From where I see it, the Monk is the one that loses out by your logic, not the game system...

I remember playing and judging at the RPGA level. I remember that there were two types of players: Those that power-gamed and those that were irrelevent. Sure rope play was fun and entertaing, but it ultimately took a back seat to the rules, and as such there was less variance than you would have us believe...

You'd still max out the important ones, but there are some things that you need to do occasionally, but can't justify maxing out. Like how often does a rogue really need to pick a pocket? I wouldn't put more than 10 or 12 ranks into it. Some knowledge skills fall into that category...

My beef was the "almost assured of success" nature of some skills. If you had a modified 19, then you only blow it on a natural 20. With 3rd and 3.5, there's always a degree of difficulty. To address your poor warrior, you take the 6 or 8 skills that you want, but don't max them out. Wizards don't get obscene amounts of skill points now either. The classes that do get them are the ones that find that the skill system has replaced the "special skills" they got in 2nd.

Realism varies directly with probability. The less likely something is, the less realistic it seems. A 20th level character, by the math I described earlier, is 1 in over 5 million. Starting with a 16 strength is assumed to be 1 in 216 of the halfling population. So that little bugger is over 1 in a billion. Since Barbarians would be 1/8 to 1/10 of the adventuring population, then you multiply by 8 to 10. So you're talking about 1 in 10 billion odds of such a thing existing in a game world...

The problem is that people wanted to universalize it, to cover everything from sword and sorcery to Sci Fi, to even Pro Wrestling! Perhaps some uniqueness to setting is lost in such rules set...

I do think that the Hit Point system needs to be re-worked for the lower levels, and remember that a natural 20 (one dice roll in 20) will always hit...

I thought Morrowind was best I've ever seen for that, but it's too much for a DM to enforce. it could work for a house rule...

But an intelligently designed, intelligently played opponent can still make things hell for the encounter, potentially beating the PC's if they are complacent, while a poorly designed, stupidly played opponent can give out a cake walk...

 

If you're going to talk about professional or competitive play, we're never going to see eye to eye. Because those are not the kind of people I'd want to play with. A game is meant to be "fun and entertaining" first and foremost IMO; I just don't get the point of the competitive stuff or why people would limit themselves to archetypes for "maximum efficiency" or whatever.

Yeah, that is what I was talking about. Pointing at something on your character sheet for your individuality (however you built it) just seems a bit shallow to me. I like the stuff that isn't immediately evident, that you have to find out. Hell, some of the best times I've had were exploring other characters' backstories and personalities.

Then you must have had bad rolls, a bad DM, or both. Backstabbing requires strategy and luck, but it's not that hard.

Tried a little six second experiment, and I managed to swing about 15 times. Of course, that's without ten pound weights in my hands or actually having to account for enemies' movements, but it does make the high number of attacks seem a bit more plausible, especially at higher experience levels.

But how many proficiencies are going to have +1 on a stat you have an 18 in? (The answer to that question, BTW, at least from the 66 proficiencies in the PHB, would be 2 for DEX.) Most of the proficiencies have no modifier or a negative one. You could get several more with a DEX 19 elf or halfling, but those are some pretty damn dextrous demi-humans, and I don't think it'd be unreasonable for them to succeed at sleight of hand 95% of the time.

Aye, that's why I said earlier that I liked the 3e skill system at low levels. But once you start getting more and more skill points...

I agree on Morrowind being a much better system, but translating that to PnP... Having seen how it tabulates every little thing, the sheer volume of the work for the DM would make it unplayable. You need a computer for that much stuff. A toned down version, OTOH...

 

That's also the groups I fell in with. Some guys enjoyed the game more for what they can tweak out of it. They would be the guys that look at a car for speed and acceleration as opposed to comfort during the ride. I felt that second edition demanded that out of players, while 3.5, the battles can be scaled so that this is not mandatory. Wnat less powergaming? Tell the table and make the encounters balance accordingly...

I think the best example is somewhere between the perceived views here. For starters, Character sheets don't have to be public domain. Only the player and DM need to have access to them. Secondly, maintain player knowledge vs Character knowledge chasm. One situation that held most intrigue for me was having a cleric, but not wanting that publicly known, and not being sure of my fellow characters.

Backstory takes talent and time to develop. I've seen less experienced players excel with it and veterans that don't care. It's a personal taste thing. I think I'd be more likely to convert them religiously the ones that don't care about that than get them to work on an interestng backstory for their character...

I found the second edition rules too restrictive with that. By changing the damage model, they opened the door to make the strike more accessable. By this, the ability is more useful. Mind you this character was in in an RPGA campaign, which had an anti-rogue bias. The RPGA campaigns were notoriously inflexible. If "Boxed text" said you got ambushed, then you got ambushed, no matter what precautions you took...

With that, I would think that monks could get higher numbers of attacks than they do (going by UFC here).

Again this was in a more artificial setting. THe campaign, the rule was 84 points between 6 stats. You could run 3 18's, a 16, an 8 and a 6. That meant Int, Dex and Strength to choose from. Again, that was not reasonable, but I did see that as an exploit...

But the difficulty of the tasks is scaled as well. climbing hills at level 1 is replaced by scaling castle walls by level 10, with slicked walls by level 20. Opposed rolls are involved in many situations too, whith the opponent getting more skilled as you go along. Even with multiple skills not maxed out, the system is not broken. You simply emphasize the skills you need more...

I've tried to figure something like that out, but the best I can think of is using d20 rules for simplicity, but requiring players to use the skills that they want to improve. I can read about a game all I want, but until I actually play it, I can't learn too much about it...