What I like about 3rd edition D&D
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 51, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author

User avatar

Active Collector

Posts: 98
Joined: Sep 03, 2006
Last Visit: Aug 27, 2013
Location: WV

Post Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:22 am 
 

I like 2E the best. Not making a value judgement. I made the natural progression from the holmes set to 1E then to 2E upon its release and eventually 3 & 3.5
Playing basic D&D was great, 1E was even better. By the time 2E was released my group and I were all more mature gamers and the order and organization of 2E was very appealing. Plenty of rules were bulky or nearly useless but the revision was necessary in my mind and my group really responded to it. Our best gaming days were 2E.
3E took my group alittle while to absorb but we decided to try it and ran an extensive campaign. Initially we really enjoyed it but by the end of run we had all decided that 3E was simply an all new game rather than a new edition. Again I'm not suggesting any edition is better but from my experience 2E provided the best combination of DM/PC balance with organization and a real D&D feel we had with our old chipped dice.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 8011
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Mar 18, 2024
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:45 am 
 

Cattledog wrote:I like 2E the best. Not making a value judgement. I made the natural progression from the holmes set to 1E then to 2E upon its release and eventually 3 & 3.5
Playing basic D&D was great, 1E was even better. By the time 2E was released my group and I were all more mature gamers and the order and organization of 2E was very appealing. Plenty of rules were bulky or nearly useless but the revision was necessary in my mind and my group really responded to it. Our best gaming days were 2E.
3E took my group alittle while to absorb but we decided to try it and ran an extensive campaign. Initially we really enjoyed it but by the end of run we had all decided that 3E was simply an all new game rather than a new edition. Again I'm not suggesting any edition is better but from my experience 2E provided the best combination of DM/PC balance with organization and a real D&D feel we had with our old chipped dice.


I have to agree.  2nd Ed was the rules of choice for us, with many house rules and tweaks.  In my mind I can see a clear break for us between the years of 87-89, the old group broke up, new groups formed, the setting changed from Greyhawk to the Forgotten Realms, and of course the shift was made from 1st to 2nd ed.  Interesting times!
 And I heartily agree with the thought 3rd ed is an entirely new game...had this sussed out after my first trip through the new 3rd ed rulebook, and when I explained the particulars to my group, they unanimously decided to stay with what we were doing.  No one wanted to take the time to learn a new game!
  One thing often overlooked, if you have the 2.0 core rules CD, the Expansion CD, and any of the downloads that used to be all over the internet, you can pretty much do anything you want....custom classes, races, magic items, spells, monsters, you name it.  What a great and easy to use and learn (at least to me) system, I was even able to create Gamma World characters and rules using the customizable stuff!  
  Oh, sorry, back to 3rd ed.... :D

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
NTRPGCON

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 30, 2022

Post Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:28 am 
 

I used the 2nd edition rules when they came out.  I never warmed to the 2nd edition modules or publications.  I hated the art and I didn't like the feel of the new products.  They lacked the character of the originals.
Also, I never felt the charm of the Forgotten Realms.


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 8011
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Mar 18, 2024
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:28 am 
 

MShipley88 wrote:I used the 2nd edition rules when they came out.  I never warmed to the 2nd edition modules or publications.  I hated the art and I didn't like the feel of the new products.  They lacked the character of the originals.
Also, I never felt the charm of the Forgotten Realms.


I'm going to throw the most horrific blasphemy at you that you will ever hear an old school guy spout: Forgotten Realms had the World of Greyhawk neck and neck for imagination and depth...for the first few years, until FR turned into a bloated, self absorbed parody of itself.  This was mostly brought about by the novels, I believe, and the flogging of characters such as Elminster, Drizzt, etc.  Also a culprit was the horrible lack of decent modules or adventures set in the FR, the significant crawls that really put their stamp on the setting like the GDQ1-7, T1-4, S1-4 or even A1-4 did for WOG. The first I blame on the marketing machine of TSR, which in retrospect could do logically nothing else but promote the few popular characters of it's setting.  The second I blame on the launching of Dungeon magazine, which featured dozens of adventures each year and effectively drained the need to publish stand alone Forgotten Realms modules or adventures.  
 However, the original box set, and the first five supplements, were SHEER BRILLAINCE.    The FR box set was everything old timers had always wanted out of the WOG.  The WOG had a sort of distance between the material and the player...IMO this is the result of EGG's background in miniature wargames. Descriptions of countries, leaders and personalities are usually nothing more than dry, impersonal stats, numbers and facts. Look at the country descriptions, most are merely lists of troops and population.  There is also a "sameness" about the material...not present in the FR's mishmash of cultures/locales including Celtic (Moonshaes), traditional kingdoms (Cormyr), Dalelands, desert/arabian nights settings (Amn/Calimshan), Egyptian (Old Empires), etc.  Through the first boxed set and the first few supplements (FR1 Waterdeep, FR2 Moonshae, FR3 Empires of the Sands, FR5 Savage Frontier) you get a feel of the vastness and depth of the material, and are left wondering "Why didn't EGG ever release a supplement detailing The Great Kingdom? The Bandit Kingdoms? Keoland?"  Ed Greenwood reminds me so much of EGG in his prime, both can write a paragraph on some locale and leave about 5 great idea floating around there just begging to be used by the DM.   It's really a tragedy that the World of Greyhawk never got the FR treatment...How much would you give for "WOG" series the equivilant of the "FR" series?  Ah, I can see it now:

WOG1 The City of Greyhawk and The Cairn Hills
WOG2 The Kingdom of Furyondy (including Shield Lands and Veluna)
WOG3 The Great Kingdom (including Ratik & Bone March)
WOG4 The Yeomanry (including Hold Sea Princes)
WOG5 The Heartlands (Bissel, Geoff, Gran March, Sterich)
WOG6 Ulek & Keoland
WOG7 Theocracy of the Pale (including Tenh)
WOG8 Lands of the Evil North (Iuz, Horned Society, Nomads, Blackmoor)
WOG9 Barbarians of the North (including Hold of Stonefist)
WOG10 Urnst (including Nyrond)
WOG11 Bandit Kingdoms (including Barrens)
WOG12 The Scarlet Brotherhood (including Sunndi & the Great Swamp)
WOG13 The East (including Ket, Perrenland, Zeif, Ull, Ekbir and Tusmit)
WOG14 The Wild Coast (including the Pomarj)
WOG15 The Sea of Dust (including Dry Steppes)

With a lineup like that, there never would have even been a need for the Forgotten Realms....and we'd all be the richer to this day!!!
  My group, that had been playing since the late 70's, had absolutely no attachment to the WOG, and the switch to the FR was not a problem. As a matter of fact, with the release of From the Ashes and additional supplements, I attempted a "new" Greyhawk campaign, which was met with sheer indifference from not only my original group but any newcomers we got to join our group.   I began to realize my attachment to the WOG was nostalgia and unfortunately wasn't felt my anyone else I gamed with


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
NTRPGCON

 WWW  

User avatar

Verbose Collector

Posts: 1918
Joined: Mar 26, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 28, 2024
Location: UK

Post Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:30 pm 
 

I still buy every new 3E Realms book as I'm a huge fan of the setting - I don't play only read and collect so I can easily ignore the stat blocks.
I actually think that Wizards have produced some really good work in the Realms even to this day - of course a lot of it is so much fluff but they seem to be keeping with Ed Greenwoods original Realms theme of high magic, political intrigue etc.

That having been said I did think that Greyhawk was going to be the default setting for the new 3rd edition when it came out - which begs the question, why is it nowhere near as well supported as the realms (and Eberon as well for that matter) by Wizards - surely the fan base must be there for the taking - release some nice supplements (a la Badmikes list above) and away you go.

(having said all that - I recently brought 'the Adventure Begins' which seem to bring Greyhawk up to date and I think it's a really neat book with plenty of hooks and campaign ideas - I'm so fickle - only the lack of money stops me from starting collecting another campaign setting)(Unless I offload some of the Mystara and Spelljammer stuff, and rein in the wargames... and the Dungeon mags.........and the last Imagine........and a newfound interest in Fanzines......................and those early White Dwarves-----------------------SHIT - too late!!!!)


You can never have too much of something you didn't need in the first place.

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector

Posts: 4753
Joined: Oct 31, 2004
Last Visit: Feb 16, 2024
Location: Caddo Mills, TX

Post Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:46 pm 
 

gyg wrote:I still buy every new 3E Realms book as I'm a huge fan of the setting.


I guess you and Badmike are eagerly awaiting Expedition to Undermountain then?

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 8011
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Mar 18, 2024
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:40 pm 
 

Kingofpain89 wrote:
I guess you and Badmike are eagerly awaiting Expedition to Undermountain then?


I don't know myself...I'm afraid all they will do is screw it up.  But I suppose they will continue to rape the old settings for all the good ideas as long as they can....hell, is there any doubt someday we'll see "Return to the Return to The Temple of Elemental Evil"?

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
NTRPGCON

 WWW  

User avatar

Active Collector

Posts: 98
Joined: Sep 03, 2006
Last Visit: Aug 27, 2013
Location: WV

Post Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:03 am 
 

Fundamentally d20 and 3E/3.5 have sound game mechanics. The revamped armor class, ability scores, and combat system are all easier to use and more linear than previous editions. Feats and class adjustments (multi/dual classing) however essentially ruin the improvements for me. I've been the DM of my group since tearing the shrink off my first boxed set. In the 2 decades at the occupation I've found the most fundamental aspect of both a good rpg and a good campaign is balance. Inevitably, pcs are drawn from a fairly wide group of players with different role-playing desires. Finding a spot for most without it being at another's expense is key. This also goes for the DM/PC interaction.

When I say DM/PC interaction I don't mean DM vs. PCs exactly but how do you challenge the pcs within the greater game mechanics while still maintaining game balance? A group of min/maxing players will force a dm to use stronger and stronger monsters earlier which in turn are worth more xp. Eventually you reach a sort of rpg arms race to make games competitive between your ultimately too strong pcs. What usually results is mutually assisted destruction. Game balance was probably the best with 1E but its continued evolution was a jumble of new rules particularly Unearthed Arcana which tipped the scales toward the pcs. 2E was still in favor of pcs but organized everything in a much better fashion while optioning most of the really unbalancing rules.

3E could've reset game balance while improving the overall mechanics in a blissful marriage but instead the scales were broken with feats and new class rules. As I mentioned above I spent about 10 years DMing in 2E and had the greatest games (I also love the ole grey box and FR sups...really superior to the WoG 83 box in my opinion.) After a few months of intensive learning and playtesting 3E my friends and I started a FR campaign. It started well but once the core of the group reached 7th level the aforementioned arms race began and eventually ended with the death of most of party, the death of the avatar of Sebek, and an ancient blue dragon. Without going into detail a group of pcs managed to defeat creature far beyond the challenge rating. Ultimately if game balance was restored with 3E it would probably be far and away the best edition but I feel it was driven even further from the center. Of course I still use the 3E combat system...

  

User avatar

Verbose Collector

Posts: 1918
Joined: Mar 26, 2004
Last Visit: Mar 28, 2024
Location: UK

Post Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:17 am 
 

Kingofpain89 wrote:
I guess you and Badmike are eagerly awaiting Expedition to Undermountain then?


Oh yes indeedy :lol: !

(Though didn't I read on these boards a while ago that Badmike had completely inhabited all of the Undermountain maps for 1 grand campaign?)(If so then send me a copy - I'd gladly pay shipping!!)


You can never have too much of something you didn't need in the first place.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 30, 2022

Post Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:16 am 
 

Cattledog wrote:Fundamentally d20 and 3E/3.5 have sound game mechanics. The revamped armor class, ability scores, and combat system are all easier to use and more linear than previous editions. Feats and class adjustments (multi/dual classing) however essentially ruin the improvements for me. I've been the DM of my group since tearing the shrink off my first boxed set. In the 2 decades at the occupation I've found the most fundamental aspect of both a good rpg and a good campaign is balance. Inevitably, pcs are drawn from a fairly wide group of players with different role-playing desires. Finding a spot for most without it being at another's expense is key. This also goes for the DM/PC interaction.

When I say DM/PC interaction I don't mean DM vs. PCs exactly but how do you challenge the pcs within the greater game mechanics while still maintaining game balance? A group of min/maxing players will force a dm to use stronger and stronger monsters earlier which in turn are worth more xp. Eventually you reach a sort of rpg arms race to make games competitive between your ultimately too strong pcs. What usually results is mutually assisted destruction. Game balance was probably the best with 1E but its continued evolution was a jumble of new rules particularly Unearthed Arcana which tipped the scales toward the pcs. 2E was still in favor of pcs but organized everything in a much better fashion while optioning most of the really unbalancing rules.

3E could've reset game balance while improving the overall mechanics in a blissful marriage but instead the scales were broken with feats and new class rules. As I mentioned above I spent about 10 years DMing in 2E and had the greatest games (I also love the ole grey box and FR sups...really superior to the WoG 83 box in my opinion.) After a few months of intensive learning and playtesting 3E my friends and I started a FR campaign. It started well but once the core of the group reached 7th level the aforementioned arms race began and eventually ended with the death of most of party, the death of the avatar of Sebek, and an ancient blue dragon. Without going into detail a group of pcs managed to defeat creature far beyond the challenge rating. Ultimately if game balance was restored with 3E it would probably be far and away the best edition but I feel it was driven even further from the center. Of course I still use the 3E combat system...


I think that game balance is better in 3rd edition...with the exception of the bard class...and the rogue against anything that cannot be sneak attacked.

The 3rd edition rules do call for the players and DM to share the rules interpretation and enforcement duties.  There are too many variables for the DM to control and he has to rely more upon the players.  It also takes more preparation.


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 8011
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Mar 18, 2024
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:59 am 
 

gyg wrote:
Oh yes indeedy :lol: !

(Though didn't I read on these boards a while ago that Badmike had completely inhabited all of the Undermountain maps for 1 grand campaign?)(If so then send me a copy - I'd gladly pay shipping!!)


My notes are all packed away....gotta dig those out someday!  Filled an entire college ruled spiral notebook...plus a folder or two...good times!!!  Someday I'll get all this out and type them up in something resembling a coherent form....

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
NTRPGCON

 WWW  


Active Collector

Posts: 11
Joined: Jan 18, 2007
Last Visit: Feb 08, 2007
Location: Bridgewater, MA

Post Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:39 am 
 

Cattledog wrote:When I say DM/PC interaction I don't mean DM vs. PCs exactly but how do you challenge the pcs within the greater game mechanics while still maintaining game balance? A group of min/maxing players will force a dm to use stronger and stronger monsters earlier which in turn are worth more xp. Eventually you reach a sort of rpg arms race to make games competitive between your ultimately too strong pcs. What usually results is mutually assisted destruction.
In that case, I would argue that the DM isn't doing a very good job.  The DM should be finding different ways to challenge the PCs (e.g. smarter monsters, not stronger).

  

User avatar

Active Collector

Posts: 98
Joined: Sep 03, 2006
Last Visit: Aug 27, 2013
Location: WV

Post Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 10:38 am 
 

I challenged the pcs in every way possible but the core of D&D especially 3E given feats is combat. Besides my players have years of experience and are really too smart for their own good. You should probably play one of my adventures before you call me a bad DM.

As for game balance...I really think feats especially the FR feats tip the scales squarely in favor of the pcs.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 30, 2022

Post Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:57 pm 
 

The monsters have the same feats...although some work better for the PC's.

Game balance is different in 3rd edition.  It holds up until about 12th level...as opposed to the sharp break at 7th level in 1st edition that was created by Unearthed Arcana.


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Active Collector

Posts: 98
Joined: Sep 03, 2006
Last Visit: Aug 27, 2013
Location: WV

Post Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:03 pm 
 

I agree with that except I'd probably say that 3E breaks down sooner than that depending on the player. Like I said, the game mechanics are fundamentally better for 3E but the game balance in 2E can be maintained by the DM whereas I feel the pc advantage is institutionalized in 3E.

  


Active Collector

Posts: 11
Joined: Jan 18, 2007
Last Visit: Feb 08, 2007
Location: Bridgewater, MA

Post Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:51 pm 
 

Cattledog wrote:I challenged the pcs in every way possible but the core of D&D especially 3E given feats is combat. Besides my players have years of experience and are really too smart for their own good. You should probably play one of my adventures before you call me a bad DM.
That certainly wasn't my intent.  I apologize.

  

User avatar

Active Collector

Posts: 98
Joined: Sep 03, 2006
Last Visit: Aug 27, 2013
Location: WV

Post Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:56 pm 
 

No need to apologize. I think that poor DMing can lead to these problems too but I think (hope) I've been doing it long enough to avoid the common problems. It may be that I'm trying to run a D&D campaign using 3E that is based on the zeitgeist of 1E & 2E. Perhaps that is the problem...

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 301
Joined: Jun 02, 2006
Last Visit: Mar 11, 2024
Location: Rochester, NY

Post Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:14 pm 
 

I've kind of soured on 3.x having played and DM'd it the past few years.  Things I like?  Some of the Feats from OGL sources like "Unarmored Defensive Proficiency" which allows Characters to have a better AC without armor and OGL derivative games such as Castles & Crusades (OGL rules adapted to AD&D 1E classes and flavor.)  As a matter of fact I'm going to have the pleasure of DMing BeyondTheBreach in a new C&C campaign real soon! :twisted:


Politician, Tree, Rope...Some Assembly Required

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 51, 2, 3, 4, 5