OK I get the feeling this one will have been debated time and time again but here goes anyway. Having played AD&D 2 ed. for about 5 years somebody bought me the 3rd edition core books. Having flicked through them though I must ask why the bizarre changes? Like what are all the 'Difficulty Chance' rolls all about? I know TSR or Wizards of the Coast are trying to streamline the system but in my eyes it's become a lot more confusing! Perhaps I'm just too used to such concepts as low AC's being good, weapon and non-weapon proficiencies etc. but the new rules seem bizarre. Hats off to them for reintroducing monks and barbarians into the game, but how can they justify allowing for elven, dwarven paladins? Hmm... Perhaps if Baldur's Gate 3 or something uses 3rd edition rules I might be won over, but at the moment I'm not sure whether 3rd ed. will become the new standard or not.

Well here's the history of the topic so far. http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000043.html

NamelessOne, I think you make some good points. I've been playing 3E since it came out and I like it. Changing from 2E was not easy. I also played that since it came out in 1989. I think everyone now will agree that 2E was a great improvement over 1E, but is the same true.

I think 3E has made some excellent improvement over 2E, mages being able to wear armor, more class balance, and skill and feat system just to name a few. But why no elven Paladins? Elves have gods and some would fight for their faith.

As for 'Difficulty Chance' it is just like putting modifiers on a NWP check in 2E. For example if a PC was using their Riding Land based skill from 2E and they were trying a complex move the DM might saw "gave me a skill check at -4". Now in 3E the DM would say "Gave me a Riding skill with a DC of 14." If 10 is a average DC than this +4 to DC would be the same as the -4 on the check in 2E.

Give it a try. I think you will enjoy 3E as much if not more than 2E D&D.

Thanks Voltric. I'll have to persuade some of me mates to give it ago. I take your point about paladins, but I'm still a bit dubious about it. I can't remember if humans have been given any extra 'powers' in 3E but isn't broadening the paladin availability just reducing their influence even further. I dunno, perhaps I've just always assumed elves were too melancholy or whatever to be paladins.

Humans are actually, in my opinion, the new "power choice" for race in 3e... you won't understand what I'm talking about unless you leaf through the 3e PH, but they start out with a free feat, additional skill points, and can choose any class as their favored one for purposes of multiclassing? Who would play anything else?

As far as a rulseset goes, though, 3e is much more cleaner than 2e, allows for a nice range of character customization that balances nicely... add to that monster templates (which are the best addition to the new rules in my opinion) and rules for NPC classes such as aristocrats and commoners and such, and you have a reworked fantasy RPG system that is second to none.

[This message has been edited by Hawkwinter (edited May 17, 2001).]

The ranger class was also just updated again for 3e. I think the link was posted somewhere on these boards.

They get additional skills and feats, and better saves. To balance it, they move to a hit dice of d8.

Having never played the 2e Pn, only in BG1/2, PS:T, and IWD, I like the 3e rules. From my PoV, they are much more streamlined and easier to use.

I find myself playing primarily with humans. Extra feat, more skills really balance out the class features of other races. In fact I'd say the three most worthwhile races to play now are the human, dwarf and hobgoblin.

Hmm, isn't the update on the ranger merely an unofficial one from Monte Cook?

Yes, the Ranger update is unofficial. It's not bad but I don't think I'm going to change my 5th level Ranger right now. He's fun to play as it is. And Bateluer if you think 2E is complex only from playing on the computer, where you don't see most of the rules, you'd think that even more if you played table top. 2E was a beloved system but compared to modern system it needed to be updated and 3E has been a good answer so far.

[This message has been edited by Voltric (edited May 17, 2001).]

What about those prestige classes that the DM Guide gives you, like tha assassin and the Arcane Archer? Does anyone actually play using any of these at all? And doesn't the picture of the blackguard look really really strange, he's kinda...camp.

Anyhow point taken about rangers and monster templates, the latter in particular is great. Werebear rangers anybody?

As far as the prestige classes go I haven't really had a lot of playing experience with them. The PC in my party either haven't tried them or don't qualify yet. I have some mixed feeling myself about them. I think they are much better than kits from 2E but they be still be a problem. So far we haven't used them and the game has been great so I don't see it being an issue. If we try them and they don't work out we will simply exclude them and nothing is really lost.

What kind of reaction have others had?

I leafed through the third edition rules in the store...there may be some usefull stuff their, but the great thing about table top gaming is what Gygax always stressed. It's YOUR game. I might consider trying it, but I'm sure not throwing out all 6 of those class specific players guides i bought in 94....kits are by far one the best concepts ever added to AD&D.
Streamlined play? maybe...as I said I havent played it...but I've been gaming since 81, and second edition stayed true to the spirit of first, just added alot of depth to the game. Commoners or Aristorcats being a class? why? I really don't see the point, any DM who felt the need to give them some depth could easily give them the proficiencies he felt they should have, and what the hell is a 5th level commoner anyway? maybe I just need to try playing it, but I'm sure not in any rush to buy NWN now that I've found out its under some rules system I'm not at all familiar with


[This message has been edited by jester1137 (edited June 10, 2001).]

hehe now I'm gonna go of on the palidin issue.
Yes, other races Fight for their gods, thats where the fight/mage fighter/shaman fighter/druid comes in.
Think in fantasy terms, not the Politically correct world of today. theres several ideas that make sense.
1: in most gaming worlds humans are the majority population. If gods gain power from their worshipers, would they provide this kind of favor to the largest pool?

2: humans are short lived, wheres most races are not. The dwarf or elf has plenty of time to learn the skills or the warrior AND priest concurently. the human would be dead before he could master both fully under normal circumstances. So his god favors him with just a limited amount of a priest abilities. and a few special ones of his own.

3: Only the intensity with which a humans life force burns, so brief and bright, given to such passion AND ambition, can draw this favor. Elves are far too secure in their supperiority, Dwarves far too concerned with Kin and home and clan, and Gnomes and haflings simply aren't suited by tempermant.

Can you picture any of these so concerned about some minor evil in a far off land that would Uproot themselves and leave behind thier comfortable homes and priveliged lives to stride forth and smite it down? neither could the gods.

Since we're discussing 3E and paladins I'll add my thoughts. I'd like to see paladins made a prestige class.I can see why they didn't from the problems just getting people to accept the rules now,if they'd told people they had to earn paladin status they never would have sold it.

A paladin is basically a fighter who has given-up weapon specialization in order to channel their gods power. I have a hard time with the gods looking at a guy just out of fighter school and saying, "He'll be good,I'll grant him my powers." Now if you were to be a lawful good fighter,not break the laws and go around smiting evil,in other words make a good name for yourself,then I could see the gods saying "I like the way you work would you like to work for me?"

So other then the howls of protest from the paladins out there,what do the rest of you think?

[This message has been edited by Capt. Tripps (edited May 24, 2001).]

the clear winner:

1st edition rules (AD&D)

by far the best..

the second edition rules were basically just an add-on to the 1st edition..

the 3rd edition rules mearly create another game....

To start with let me say that I played 2E for 15 years and loved the rules. 2E was a great improvement over 1E, which had all kinds of problems. Just try running a bard in 1E for example.

With that said I think 3E is a good set of rules. At first I had some doubts, why replace 2E? What was wrong with it? Was WotC just pulling a money ploy on us? Well, 3E has fixed a lot of problem from 2E and has added some great new rules. I don't like all the new stuff, so my group simply won't use it. I can say for sure that the 3E character system is MUCH better than 2E kits. Kits were TOTALLY unbalanced.

On the Paladin issue I think other races should be paladin and it's not for PC reasons. Non-human gods would want their followers to fight for them as well. However, I do agree that paladin should be a prestiege class. You should not have a 1st level paladin getting kill by a gobin. What kind of god would give favor and power to a weak follower. You should have to prove yourself first.

i think there should be a paladin in every race for every god on the simple fact that all gods need devotees more then just priests
i mean in every god/alignment/race u find the over cocky overzealous extremely arrogant character beholding his own beleives i mean even for the neutral gods ull find likewise ppl for oghma and cyric and helm and deneir and mystra. i think the more flexible paladin class was one of the greatest improvements in 3E.

I gotta agree with Cotman. 1st edition was the best. 2nd edition was done out of spite toward Gygax. 3rd edition MIGHT be easier to newbies, but it is a pain for us loyal long-time players. In reality, I think WOC just wanted it to look different since a different company owns it now. Besides, if they can sucker us into buying edition after edition they can get rich(er) by just repackaging the same old stuff. How long until 4th edition? While we are playing their game, they are playing US!!!
One other thing...1st edition bards were FAR superior to the 2nd/3rd edition bards!!!

yeah, true ace, but about 1 tenth of one percent of straight rolled charaters could BE first ed. bards.

And just like always, it comes down to your gaming group. Alot of second edition stuff got thrown out or changed in our game sessions as we adjusted to it.
Powergamers who can't live with a score under 14 and want everything relevant to thier class to be 17 and 18 are the only reason paladins seem so great. try to roll one straight.
Not all gods would have palidins. Think about the modern world. Would Buhdists have palidins? I don't see lathander letting those judgemental pricks get special favor :)

It also, once again, comes down to the nature of the race. Haflings don't have that tradition of slapping on armor and going out looking for trouble. Dwarves tend depend on good steel more than prayer. you get what i mean.

Side-note....something I've been pondering..half-elves having to make a tolkien style choice that would affect their abilities....losing a few but gaining the ability to dual class if they choose human, gaining a few but maybe taking con hit if they choose elven..havent really thought TOO much about mechanics yet.

Eeeeh... In 3rd edition, and LG character may be a Paladin, no special Diety worship required.

Anyway, I like 3rd ed. Quite frankly, I don't give a rats @$$ what ye "old timers" think; 3rd ed. is a lot easier and faster to learn and play. For example, there is no logical or intelligent reason that Thac0 needed to be done as it was, the twisted armor class and insane assortment of dconflicting, cooperative, and non-concurrent AC bonuses were a big frickin headache, and I hated the Kits. Anyhting beyond the basic book seemed to be designed solely to make bigger powergamers, and demihumans eventually got the shaft in high level games. On top of that, but the absurd differences in multi and dual classing burned my blood.

I hate 2nd with a passion thats almost hloy. ANd the artwork for it sucked, too.

I understand where you are coming from. I played 2E since it came out and do love it. If you started with 1E you most likely feel the same way. I played 1E and basic D&D for about 3 years before 2E came out and I thought that 2E was a vast improvement. Every once in a while when I think 3E as issues I take out Unearthed Arcana and make a conparision. 1E had a lot of issues. The only thing I really loved was Oriental Adventures.

When 3E came out I have a lot of negative feelings about it. Why am I buying a new system when mine is great and all that. But after playing 3E for several months I have decided that 3E is a good system. You can throw out the 'easier for beginner' line and all, but I'm not a beginner.

3E has made some great changes in the character creation systema. Let face it kits in 2E were simply a powergaming tool. Customizing your PC does only mean getting more powers. I think the skills and feats system help obtain this goal of customization without medagaming.

By no means do I think that 3E is perfect. It has lots of problems but it is a better system overall than 2E and light years ahead of 1E. I don't say this without thought. I still enjoy 2E and it will always have a place in my heart but using better rules that make the game more balanced and enjoyable is not a bad thing.

I actually remember that the first edition was actually significantly augmented with Gygaxx's Unearthed Arcana.. and they actually added some 'kits' (they were not called that then...) via small packets in modules, the Polyhedron magazine and Dragon magazine.. I believe the Acrobat class (a thief subclass actually first appeared in a magazine.. not a book)...

cavs, etc. also came out this way

My opinion though:

1st edition were the best because they were the first to set a solid guideline for roleplaying games. the rules were somewhat balanced but let players play the way they wanted

In a role playing game, you set the tone/rules when you start---if you want all you characters to be superheroes---then alter your ability scores to suit your purpose.. if you want to roleplay the common person trying to be a hero, then role the die and take your chance....if you want a Monty haul or powergaming dungeon, the the DM sets it up that way..

does the 3rd edition really change this? I think not.

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 **** 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.