POLL: 2-nd Edition Rules or 3-rd?

Remove all ads!

Whitch rules are better?Better balanced more fun and so on...

[ November 12, 2002, 03:20: Message edited by: AlexGK ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 28 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: 2Ed Rules or 3Rd? (28 votes.)

2-nd Edition Rules or 3-rd? (Choose 1)
* 2-nd Edition rules - 25% (7)
* 3-rd Edition rules - 71% (20)
* Both suck - 4% (1)

 

Though my preferance right now is 3rd ed rules, I do feel that it lacks majorly in many departments. Skills are limited as opposed to 2nd ed non weapon proficiencies. 3rd ed feats are brilliant, but what happened to weapon mastery? Existing characters converted to 3rd ed can become either become very watered down or overpowered.

I now use 3rd, but I really feel that it was designed to be too simplistic. I suppose that in some ways it may be more balanced than 2nd ed.

Any thoughts?

 

I think weapon mastery was removed and feats incorporated so if you wanted to, you could specialize in a weapon using feats. If you rather wanted to use your feats on something else that's possible too.

Skills I don't find a problem. If you need more just make them

I think the major advantage is the simplicity though, roll a d20+something, roll highest.. a very quick sum up of the mechanics
And the new multiclassing rules! They just rock

[ November 12, 2002, 08:04: Message edited by: Lokken ]

 

Yeah, however it does suck when you had someone who had mastery, with the extra attack, damage, etc.
Skills for combat are generally straight forward, and I have implemented some feats and skills of my own, but non-wepon proficiencies for purposes of character personalization are lacking. I have players moaning about tumbling, juggling and related proficiencies (though in my opinion new feats more than make up for it)
That is a bit difficult to just implement as skills, since feats are once off (many of them at least) and it makes little sense to be implemented as a skill.

The personalization of your character is just a little weak in some areas. Overall though, it makes my job as a DM soooo much easier.

 

Go the 2e! Some of the stuff I read about 3e (such as feats like walking on clouds! ) are complete crap. The system for making items in 2e is also better (IMHO).

 

One might find it useful to have some first hand knowledge of a subject before discussing it, I would think.

There may be such a feat as you mention (walking on clouds) but if so, it is in some optional rules supplement (probably the epic level rulebook for dealing with 'demi god' like characters).

The 3rd edition system is much better than the 2nd. The multiclassing and statistics systems are vastly better, for starters. The 0 level spells, bonus spells for Int/Cha, and similar things make low level wizards much more fun to play. And the game actually has a skill system! Yay! The non weapon proficiency system of 2nd was a hopeless kludge, hardly meriting consideration.

 

well, well, well till now even results
Waiting for 4-th Ed to be mix of these 2
Multiclass rules in 3-ed rulezz as someone mentioned

 

The huge drawback I find in playing 3rd ed is the combining of any class with every race! this sucks bigtime. And I also dislike the possibility to become paladin/ranger with any kind of stats. The exclusiveness of these classes in completely gone! The plus of the 3d ed are the new rules dealing with hitting and how to calculate ac etc.

Is it just me or do you level up more quickly in 3d edition?

 

3rd ed just seems to make everything so generic. The total experience is not just combat and spellcasting. Very personalised characters help from a roleplaying perspective.

I like a well designed character which could be very nicely scuplted using the Player option - Skills and Powers, enabling you to give specific penalties to a character and additional bonuses in return. Power gaming is tedious.

3rd ed is quite nicely brought about, but it really lacks lustre. Maybe there will be a bit more to offer in the future.

@ aegron: You do level up faster in 3rd ed, however, as you gain levels, you receive less and less XP for defeating monsters of low hit die

[ November 12, 2002, 14:29: Message edited by: Astin X ]

 

The rules for item creation is first of all, using common sense, then afterwards take a look at what the formula say. Though I don't think a spellcraft roll would be out of the question for enchanting weapons to see if failed or succeeded, then again, it's easy to implement.

As for only combat and spellcasting, I think that's where the rules have been improved. Though it's not everything, just make a good background story and there is a ton of stuff to play a really in-depth story from since mechanics isn't everything.

@aegron
I don't see why it sucks, there'll always be a rare occurance, and it's easy to rule otherwise if you're dm'ing the game. And a paladin/ranger cannot progress in paladin any more since he left that path with that multiclass.

[ November 12, 2002, 15:13: Message edited by: Lokken ]

 

As having played both rulesets I'm going to say that 3rd Ed. rules, no contest. There were things in the older set of rules that didn't make since (why are there level limits?) The other annoying part of 2nd Ed. was flipping through all those tables and charts (I memorized the THAC0 chart at one point) and trying to determine what went where for your particular character.
Combat was a mess too, THAC0? it took time to learn how to accurately calculate a to hit roll (it was like THAC0 plus or minus your AC depending on what it was or something like that.)

 

What about hit dice at high level?At the end you have a barbarian 20 lvl with 300-400 HP WOW!!!
And his every swing hit, ok almoust because he can still miss critically...
Still thinking that there could be a defensive ability for every weapon - as oposite to having attack bonus there may be a defensive bonus.
At last i find it stupid that you get the same to hit and to damage bonus for all weapons - at str. 20 you do with dagger 6-10 and with great sword 6-15 so 2 damage more at all .Does not pays off for loss of shield And to balance it they just put better great swords in the game as other weapons

[ November 12, 2002, 19:04: Message edited by: AlexGK ]

 

er.. that'd be 6-9 for dagger and 9-19 for greatsword due to twohanded weapon rule. Quite a difference. As for the barbs every swing hits, not so. His first attack (and probably second too at high levels) is likely going to always hit, but his 3rd and 4th might not, and just because he hit once doesn't mean all that much in some cases when having high hp.
Having a shield brings check penalties (or usually) and arcane spell failure too.

[ November 12, 2002, 20:38: Message edited by: Lokken ]

 

Ahmz, I seem to be confused with 2-nd Ed.Dagger is indeed 6-9 What new rule is there for great swords?I seem to have lost it somewhere Are there such new rules for all the weapons?

 

3rd Edition all the way! Second edition just confused me and i could never complete a damn character sheet!

 

wielding a weapon twohanded grants 1½ strength mod to damage.

so the +5 mod from 20 strength would be +7 to damage on the twohanded weapons.

 

Didn't knew this
But then my example applies to the bastard sword who's 1d10 as was great sword on 2E.A bonus of 1.25 or something would be great huh
Does that 1.5 bonus appear if you wield long sword and you don't wear a shield?

BTW:3E is leading all over.Seems things are getting better with 3E

[ November 13, 2002, 02:01: Message edited by: AlexGK ]

 

ok, a greatsword is 2d6 in 3e. A bastardsword is 1d10, with special training you can use a bastard one handed (normally 2-handed).

thus with 20 strength, 6-15 damage + shield, still outguns the dagger by far

I'd say you could only wield large weapons two-handed unless stated otherwise in their description, a dm matter really.
It's the same as asking if you could use a shortsword or dagger 2-handed (where the point seems to go moody imo).

Longsword, nope, no 1.5 damage if you play in my games, unless you gimme a really good point to let you go along with it, hehe
And there are many ways to joggle around two weapons, twohanded weapons or weapon and shield. For instance it's possible with the right feat combination and great strength to dualwield greataxes or greatswords (with some rather severe to-hit penalties I might add, but when you hit it hurts! hehe)

[ November 13, 2002, 10:41: Message edited by: Lokken ]

 

I don't see that NWP suck and not all feats realy suck, its just that some of both do. And now thanks to Lokken I do have some information on 3E, enough to like some feats and totally hate others. And yes, this Walking on Clouds thing is in the Epic Level Handbook, which you say is an optional rule, but the other books (I am guessing) say that all rules are basically optional.
I agree that classes such as paladins and anything should not mix. Unless you give up been a paladin then you should not be able to dual, it takes the whole pure holy warrior thing away from them.

[ November 13, 2002, 10:56: Message edited by: Aikanaro ]

 

One thing! In my very humble of 3E, the epic level handbook and 99% of the contents in it SUCK! Really the worst released book ever, but that is of course again, imho (Personally I disregard anything in the ELH at all for my campaign, using the vague guidelines for epic levels in the FRCS instead).

The core books PHB, DMG and MM are what is considered the basic rules that are generally accepted in a 3e game. If changes are made to these rules, the DM should let you aware of it.

The Paladin duel thing is a bit tricky, since the entire multiclassing system is different.
So it's possible for a level 4-5 fighter to see the light and hop on Paladin classes, though if he takes a level of something not Paladin after this, he can't progress in his Paladin class any longer, this is in the PHB.
He doesn't lose his special abilities if he still is LG though.. I think (don't whip me if I'm wrong).

One has to keep in mind that many spells, prestige classes, items etc. are BROKEN even in the official products. This may have been a glitch or a conversion that hasn't been properly thought of.
A harm spell can reduce your 3-400hp barb (just checked my HP average, 3-400 is frikkin high average even for a barb) to 1d4 hit points without a save. Obviously a remnant from 2e Harm considering 2e hp at later levels that hasn't been converted with proper sense.
Every DM has to keep a clear head and use common sense in ruling, since 3e isn't flawless (not saying 2e is either mind you).

EDIT:
Instead of spamming a new, I'll edit.
To the thing about the rules-lawyers below. YES! hehe, a truly wonderful thing, but always remember the DM is always right (he should be able to make a sensible argument why he's right though).

a note total off topic, I bet 5 bucks that Ex voted they both suck, hehehe

[ November 13, 2002, 11:36: Message edited by: Lokken ]