worth going to 3.5?

One of the biggest beefs I have with 3e is feats. I love the concept, i love the feats, but there is one really big problem. YOU CAN"T GET ENOUGH OF 'EM AS THE RULES ARE WRITTEN! What's the point of every Dragon Mag, source book, supplement, web enhancement, fan site, house rules, etc. etc. etc., having another dozen feats if you get maxed out on 'em just trying to use two weapons at once? I would advocate everyone getting another bonus feat at every level, so that you can obtain a few good ones. But then again, would that unballance the game? Not being a rules lawer per se, I don't know, but I'd like a thief that had a few feats by 5th level, by the powers!

That being said, the unification of rules and roles was a big plus over 2e (or 1e like i originally played, old fogey that i am)

You know, being the odd man out here, I don't like 3E. (or 3.5)

I don't like that the books almost require you to use miniatures now. (what with monster stats listing movement in hexes, weapons have hex ranges, facing becoming a major issue in spells and ranged weapons, etc.)

I don't like that official character building books advise on how to munchkinize your characters. (read that first hand)

I don't care for the fact stat ranges have all become insane - making numbers like 20 mean very little.

I am disappointed that they gave all the monsters more hit points - rather than supporting the idea of playing your monsters smarter. (dragons with over a thousand hit points!? I never met a party I couldn't defeat with a well played dragon when they had 150hp)

I don't like the fact they got rid of weapon speed. (realistically, why use a rapier when a two-handed sword is just as fast? As a fencer I love my rapier, but if I could use a claymore with the same speed, I'd use the more damaging weapon for life and death combat, while using the smaller for sport)

I don't like the fact that all classes now progress at the same rate. No, the classes were not all equal in 2E, that is why they had different xp requirements to level. It made for some variety, wherein the classes actually seemed like individuals who'd learned in different schools, pursued different paths to power.

I don't like the fact that they made weapon profs. into feats and gave wide weapon categories to each class. Now every person who learns a given field has a whole list of weapons they can pick up and use - no weapon choices to reflect your concept of character development.

I don't like the idea that there are so many cross class spells for magic users/clerics now. Once upon a time the two schools were fairly sepperate, not any longer.

I am very displeased that they turned every check into a high d20 roll now. Some people can't roll high - trust me, I have players who cannot roll higher than a 12 during an entire session - mathmatical odds or no. Plus, the percentile roll for thieves was interesting and very easy to apply a wide range of modifiers to - now thief skills are just like all others.

I could go on, but I think I've made my position clear. The only thing I liked about 3E was the increased number of skill points ... but one could easily house rule that into 2E and avoid all the other downfalls of the new system.

Thus, if you own a good ammount of 2E material, I'd recommend sticking with that. If you don't mind the changes and you want to keep using the newly produced books then I guess you might as well make the update - though considering 3E was only out for, what? 2 years, before they released 3.5? You might do just as well to wait another couple years and pick up the much worse 4edition. (Mind you, I'm only assuming it will be worse, since each consecutive rule set since 2E has been)

Keep in mind that my reponses here are in the spirit of freindly discussion. Nothing said here should be taken with a hostile tone. I only mention that on the off chance one should take these comments personally or I should word something poorly and give the wrong impression.

>>You're kidding, right? Say what you will about third edition, but it doesn't have THAC0, you can play whatever race you want with no or very little tweaking. That should be good enough to make it better than 2e, but I feel compelled to give a more thorough rebbuttal, so here goes.<<

You're and idiot, listen moron I don't! .. (hahaha! Just kidding! Sorry, but I had to follow my opening statement like that ... it was a joke I couldn't pass up)

More seriously, now, Thac0 wasn't that bad, particularly since most every GM uses a screen which had those totals listed for easy reference. Sure Thac0 could be difficult for a player to work out quickly in his head, but that is a benefit ... I don't want my players knowing exactly what they need to hit. (or save, for that matter, the GM screens had save charts, players should be left in the dark about what their saves are ... it adds to the tension.)

As for playing most any race, I assume you're talking about monstrous races, which were addressed in part my the Humanoid Handbook. If one really wanted to play a monster not in the HM and the GM was up to it, it didn't take much effort to turn any race into a pc. (by either using the hit die as a level modifier, or making a few quick decisions about power progression to reduce the monster's potency and make it a viable pc. The ELC [that's the term, right?] modifier does the same thing - and from what I've heard, most of the time that needs be adjusted.)

>>3.5 doesn't even use a hex grid. It's all in 5' squares with 8 bordering squares. Which DM's have been doing with paperclips and graph paper since the games early days. <<

I've never known anyone to do that. Neither I, nor anyone I've ever known, used makeshift grids for combat. The only time I ever saw this used for 2E was in massive combat - between armies - and in those cases people typically bought "battle mats" or pieced together large hex sheets.

>>The books don't tell you how to Munchkinize so much as play a decent character and sometimes they don't even do that. Where is the crime in telling new players up front that it's important for Wizards to have high Intelligence? <<

But see, here you're wrong. Shortly after 3E came out (or was it 3.5?) there was an official "character builder" book released which used statements such as the following: (paraphrased, because I don't have the book in front of me) "If you should roll a 3 for your stat set and you are playing a race which receives a negative to one of its stats, put the 3 here. Since no stat may begin lower than a 3, you will avoid taking this negative." (Man oh man, if I were GM and a player tried to pull this on me, I'd still reduce their stat and let them try playing with a 2. Rule books should not tell you to cheat.) I believe it was the same book, though I might be mistaken, which went on to say: "If you are playing a fighter or similar class which doesn't use Charisma to affect its powers, put your lowest stat here, since it has no effect on combat situations." (I have traumatized players who thought to use Cha as their "garbage stat"! What kind of RPG book tells one to munchkin away from stats whose primary influence is Role Playing?)

>>Honestly, weapon speed makes logical sense<<

It did, and the required math was nominal. It's not as though I'm advocating weapon vs armor type (which was very realistic but DID add one too many factors to combat) though I have used that in the past.

>>Variety is good, players getting pissed because everyone else is leveling up but they aren't is not. Again, this was just another thing that the DM wound up having to deal with. How do you determine what is and isn't a good challenge for your players when they are all different levels? Plus it led to a system of multi-classing and Dual-classing that confounds me to this day. <<

I never saw this arise in a game, either. If the pcs all started out the same level, then they were always within two levels of one another. Most of the time those classes which were lower level were the "power classes" and as such could keep up with higher lvl pcs. In all my years of gaming, this never became a problem. (at 14 years experience I'm at about the "half-way" mark in the hobby - here long enough to remember the "good ole days" but not so long as those who played Basic or 1E extensively)

As to dual/multi classing, I always prefered this over the new approach of tacking my new class levels onto my existing. Why should it take me longer to pick up the basics of being a rogue, simply because I have 5 years (lvls) of fighter experience under my belt? Requiring that I get lvl 6 xp to add 1 lvl of another class seems rediculous. In the old system you'd either switch classes and begin with the basics in your new profession (lvl 1) or pick the secondary class up and gain xp in them both simultaneously. For a practical example: Having a doctorate in pharmacology does not make it harder to get a bachelor's in acting - the initial acting classes are going to be remedial and no harder now than if I'd taken them first. (where, in 3E it takes longer to learn remedial class material if you pick it up at a higher level)

>> I think it makes sense for Fighters to be able to use most common weapons, because it represents their years of training with a plethora of different weapons.<<

Fighters, yes, but they did this in 2E by giving them a mere -1 to use non-proficient weapons. Why should all rogues, bards and mages learn the same dozen weapon profs?

>> which makes sense considering how much better Arcane spells typically are than Divine. <<

Which is why Mages advanced slower than Clerics for most of their careers.

>>Deep down, don't you sort of like the notion of only having to role one die to do most things? <<

NO! Not at all! I prefer using a multitude of dice and I know quite a few DnD gamers who feel the same way. Mostly, it's those who began their careers in 3E or non DnD games who think this is a good thing.

>>Personally, I've noticed a steady increase in quality and consistency within the game over the last couple years<<

Seriously, it seems to be that 3E books are, in general, of poorer quality than second edition material. They focus too much on mechanics. In fact, most every non d20 company I've seen move to d20 or make a d20 product has shown serious decrease in quality as well. Legend of the Five Rings, for example, had fantastically well written material with very little focus on game mechanics; when they temporarily went to d20 their writing suffered, the books became overburdoned with game mechanics and the whole quality of the setting went down hill.

Third edition seems too obsessed with mechanics and the need to explain everything in relation to those mechanics. Magical items have become less mystical and interesting; nothing happens now "just because it's cool" (which is part of what allowed Planescape to become such a great setting); treasure accumulation has become regulated by level ... the list just goes on and on.

For those who like 3E, more power to you; I imagine you're thinking the same about us 2E'ers. But I could never, in good conscience, recommend 3E to another rpg player.

Honestly, if we're talking RAW, personally, I'll take 3.0/3.5 any day. Houserules shouldn't count, but I'll mention them a time or two, when I think they're appropriate.

I love that most fluff is expunged from the core rules. (In fact, I think they haven't yet gone far ENOUGH to expunge fluff in many cases.) I want fluff, I'll create it, or buy a campaign setting guide. I've actively had players refuse to play with me because I like to play games that aren't "D&D", though I'm using very close to RAW rules, but changing the fluff around. I don't mind the iconics having fluff, as they're iconic, and likewise, I don't mind setting-specific material having fluff, because fluff is really what defines a setting. I want to play in Rokugan, I'll pick up books about Rokugan's setting and use appropriate mechanics. So, as far as that goes, I consider 3rd. ed. material more along my thoughts. Rulebooks are crunchy, campaign books are fluffy, and anything combining the two is usually to support variant fluff, if at all possible.

Furthermore, I like the fact that in 3.5, I I don't have to have a screen most of the time to be able to remember skill rolls, saves, weapon rules, and AC (or Thac0). I prefer games when rolling in the open, minus a few specific cases. Therefore, I find the idea of NEEDING a screen to remember stuff pretty much a killer for my enjoyment.

As for a battlemat, I prefer a 'ruler and string' type method and keeping maps on the fly. It's not technically supported, but it's easy enough to deal with. The reason to have movement rules like they are stems from the old OD&D, 1st ed, and 2nd ed dungeon crawls, so not using a battlemap is in fact historically kind of oddball.

Cheap multi-classing is a definitive power-boost, which is why I prefer the way 3rd does things, because it basically prevents characters from taking a few levels in classes to get a definitive boost on HP, saves, skills, and overall abilities, without paying a cost equivalent to that of a level of their current class. A Fighter/MU is almost always more powerful than a straight fighter, and a Fighter/MU/Cleric is even more powerful. Changing classes and starting back at level 1 ISN'T really applicable to the real world, either. I don't suddenly stop knowing my current skillset, but I DO find it harder and harder to gain more skill as I go, even if I branch out a bit. And, yeah, I do in fact find it a bit harder to branch out past a specific point, because I know what I currently can do, and continue to improve on that linearly, while branching out requires more time and effort than becoming more skilled in my main area of skill. Therefore, currently, I'd say 3rd ed. multiclassing is a general improvement.

I also see that a lot of gamers don't really care for having multiple dies... and a lot of the guys I knew started playing during 2nd ed. or earlier. Quite a few are the 'old-school'-ers, who've been playing for 20-30 years.
They like the idea that 1 die type is pretty much all that's needed. They just recognize that in a lot of cases, multiple dies of a given type are necessary. This is easily borne out by the fact that d20 and d6 based games are by far the largest sellers... the simplicity of using ONE die for most, if not all, rolls is attractive when considering the need to buy possibly dice, since it means that one does not have to have 10-15 each of 7 types, but rather 5-10 of one type, plus assorted extras as needed.

I'm also perfectly OK with books designed for NEWBIES telling players how to make their characters more effective, since newbies might not understand the finer points of character min/maxing when joining a game where there is an expectation that min/maxing will in fact take place. Most of those books have NOTHING on the schemes advanced players will use to produce maximal power at minimum cost. They just enlighten players to the fact that not all skills/abilities are created equal. Likewise, those rulebooks aren't telling players to cheat: they are telling players ways to make the best out of a bad hand dealt.

I figure we won't see eye-to-eye on gaming, Jack, but I hope I've explained my rationales for things I see as problems in 2nd ed. I'm pretty used to not agreeing on edition issues. My brother's a 2nd ed. gamer. I'd never be able to play in one of his games because our philosophies on gaming are so different.

>>I figure we won't see eye-to-eye on gaming, Jack, but I hope I've explained my rationales for things I see as problems in 2nd ed.<<

Like I said before, if it works for you; go with it. It is apparent, though, from your comments that we've had very different experiences in gaming - things you take for granted and those I take for granted seem to clash. Always interesting to see that.

Again, I'm not attacking anyone's preferences, just stating my own.

>>Oh, and yes, if asked I will provide a list of all systems I'm equipped to run, as well as ones I've played if you reaaaallly want to know. <<

Nah, my list is probably just as long. I once had difficulty joining a PW in neverwinter nights because my list of gaming experience caused the application to run beyond the word limit allowed. (something they'd never had happen before) Taking that into consideration, I'd not claim DnD - any edition - is the best system avialable ... it is merely the most readily accessible for those I game with. (though I have been making an effort in the last year to introduce my new players to a number of different systems - as I miss something about the era when one used to measure their gaming credentials in how many systems they'd played.)

Nah, a 19 in 3e is a 30 at most. Also, you really shouldn't mention the Epic system, even in passing, in a post where you defend 3E, because it's one of handfull of rules (along with Divine Ranks and Level Adjustments) that simply don't work but WotC refuses to ackownledge as failures.

Of course, this is nothing new to the game. It's almost like a grand learning experience. Beginner players don't know the rules, Intermediate players know the rules, and advanced players know the rules but make a point of not following all of them.

In terms of the system itself, I think 3rd Edition is an improvement, though I can't swallow some parts of it. I'll admit, I'm one of those old-fashioned types who thinks that if a character has a score 20 or above, that is a spectacular, beyond-normal-possibility ability. If you have a Strength of 20, which a 3rd Edition character can have at quite a low level, then you are, absolutely, the strongest non-adventurer in town. A person who leads a normal life will never have an ability close to that and may very well never encounter an individual like that in his whole life. It is impossible for a human to have a Strength of 20 without magical bonuses, even with the best die rolls. Therefore, I consider an 18 to be the strongest a human can naturally be. The strongest person in the real world probably has a few levels, and maybe enough to boost his Strength score, but not much beyond 18. That's my problem with the ever-escalating ability scores.

What's worse is when the game system begins to assume that characters are built like this. Players start to feel that they're entitled to such things. Thus it starts.

What choles me a little more, however, is the increasingly binary nature of the rules system at higher levels. If you have two characters in a mid- to high-level party their skill bonuses grow further and further apart. Your 12th-level Cleric probably has no skills in Jump, for example. But maybe he has a Strength bonus as high as 14. That nets him a tidy +2 to Jump. His friend the Barbarian, though, if he chose to put his skill ranks there and had that coveted 18 Strength, would be sitting on a +23 to Jump. No magic or even raging needed.

For this example, the Barbarian could perform a 10-foot standing (standing!) long jump whenever he wanted. With no chance of failure. If they come up to a 20-foot chasm with room to get a running start, the Barbarian could make that leap every time with plenty of room to spare. Plenty. As in, if he rolled the worst he could, he'd still clear it by a good 4 feet. Meanwhile, the Cleric will wear out his holy symbol praying to his domain-granting deity that he doesn't plummet to an ugly demise. So the DM can't put in 20-foot chasms and assume that the party will be able to pass through the encounter. These astronomical skill bonuses are meaningless without astronomically difficult challenges. Your +34 to Hide means nothing without supernaturally astute guards standing watch at the gate.

Which is why I so wholeheartedly support the skill system of Mike Mearls' Iron Heroes, which supplies extra benefits that you can attempt in a normal skill check in return for extra penalties to your attempt. For an idea of what I'm talking about, look at the Hide and Move Silently skills. They've always had this mechanic, but strangely it wasn't carried over to other skills.

If you have loads of gaming material for 2E, I would recommend that you stick to 2nd. If you have no problems with the edition you're currently playing (which will probably have incorporated a number of house-rules by now as solutions to problems you detected), why change?

If you DO decide to make the switch, don't throw away any 2E supplements. I'm afraid I must agree that many 3.X books are downright boring, what with their focus on feats and prestige classes and all that.

What is that DM smoking, and where can I get some?

3.5 has more classes and races and prestige classes statted up than I can count. Probably more than is strictly necessary. Pick up about any 3.5 book and there's probably a new playable race in it, as WotC seems fond of that trend recently. I imagine he just wants to limit the races people are playing in his game, but that's a boldfaced lie, quite frankly.

It's just a matter of tradition. When they were working on 3rd edition, they wanted to turn paladins into a prestige class, but the playtesters didn't like the idea.

The d20 company Green Ronin developed paladins and blackguards as base classes for every alignment - they call the new classes Unholy Warrior and Holy Warrior, and they can have the same powers as paladins and blackguards, or completely different powers depending on which domains they select.

I believe WotC went for a very crunchy style in the 3.0/3.5 PHB/DMG because they didn't want to be seen as enforcing a single roleplaying style, not because they wanted to increase 'rollplaying', which is simply one style of game. Furthemore, 'roleplaying' as it is now defined wasn't really all that present in the original D&D games made by Gygax and Co., and the games would have been derided as 'rollplaying'. The original D&D games were filled with a lot of OOC stuff and and I believe Gygax has said that they were barely even dungeon crawls. So it's not really meant to be 'rollplaying' heavy... It's just meant to be capable of suiting the "No metagaming allowed" types and the "I don't really care what your concept is, as long as you play it occasionally and don't mess with the party too much" types with equal efficiency. Furthermore, the very things that increase 'rollplaying' are meant to differentiate characters and make them easier to roleplay as having differences of style and thought. So you can't have one without the other, really...

The second one is also something that I think has always been there. A lot of players like a heavily minmaxed game that's mostly about killing stuff and taking their loot, which is a style that leads to powergaming. Powergaming isn't bad either. There's powergaming, then there's munchkinism. Powergaming can be appropriate, and inappropriate. Am I playing a game of 'kill stuff and take the loot'? If so, then powergaming probably won't be a bad thing, and might be encouraged. Am I simply perfecting a character in his area of expertise? I am probably powergaming in a manner that probably won't break the game. Certainly, there are things out there that are really easy to break, but those are generally something you'll notice from a mile away (Divine Metamagic, the Epic spell system, SDAs, some uses of polymorph and it's ilk, Divine Power) So really, it's all a matter of expectation. If I'm skirting by on very shifty readings of the rules, cheating, or in general being an antagonistic style of ruleslawyer I'm probably munchkinizing. But if I'm optimizing my character squarely within both the INTENT and the LETTER of the rules, why should I be penalized? I don't want to be crippled in my own area of skill... I want to be the best I can be. THAT is powergaming, but is it really a crime?

I agree with you on the Box Sets though, but then again... Box Sets are expensive to produce. I can barely afford RPG stuff as it is... a 50-80 dollar box set with an adventure I'm not likely to use and minis which may or may not be used isn't really worth it in my book. Some sets, I'd have been inclined to pick up. Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and PS sets, possibly.