|
Post by Merkuri on Nov 17, 2003 20:36:49 GMT -5
Interesting argument. I never thought about an elf's long life as being an impediment (or even a challenge) to roleplaying, but I haven't played an elf since I first learned to play (and that was more roll-playing than roleplaying). I usually see the more alien characters as a challenge to play, but I do see your point. There is a point where it stops being a challenge and starts being impossible. (Doesn't change my opinion of 3e, though. )
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 17, 2003 23:16:47 GMT -5
Don't go over to Planet. Stay right here. Where the boards are nice and fresh and new. I can name four or five threads where 2e players have jumped in to slam 3e, yet I cannot find a single thread that was started to slam 2e. Not one. Even this thread was specifically started to slam 3e. You jumped into the Power Plays thread specifically to slam 3e. The thread on the Den lasted about 2 posts before someone had to slam 3e. Yet, I have yet to see a single thread dedicated to slamming 2e. That's what I mean when I talk about this superiority complex that 2e players seem to have. The only reason I come back with shots is because 2e players start them. Poke me and I'll poke back.
One thing I will agree with you though is that I've almost never seen an elf played as anything but a human with infravision. That I'll agree with 100%. But, again, that's a problem with the players and not the game system itself. I went so far as to ban elves from my 2e campaigns. Now that I play in Scarred Lands, where they give very good and original backgrounds for the elves, I find the guy who plays an elf to play it very very well. At least so far. Give it some time and we'll see.
As far as the wizard with a 9 int goes, if I played him long enough, he would get a 10 int and access to 0 level spells. Even longer and he would get access to 4th level spells, eventually. Haven't you read any of the Discworld novels? Rincewind mean anything to you? A fantasy character who cannot cast spells. Admittedly it's satire, but, if I wanted to play that character, I could.
See, you see being a wizard as simply casting spells. I see being a failed wizard as an excellent role playing opportunity. Granted, I wouldn't play this character since it has the half life of a snowball in July, but it would be interesting for a while.
Take the barbarian/conjurer example above. Thrud was it? Now, on the surface, that looks entirely munchkin. Yet, if you take the time, you could make that a very viable character. Thrud begins out as a barbarian from a northern tribe. The shamans in his community believe that there are spirits all around and that you can call upon these spirits to help you. Being an illiterate culture, they do not have spellbooks. Rather they have rolled hides into which symbols have been burned. By studying these highly intricate symbols, they can memorize spells. After adventuring for a while, Thrud begins talking to the shamans and they see him as being touched by the spirits. They teach him the sacred symbols and he becomes a first level conjurer. He continues adventuring, adding more symbols to his hide roll as he goes up levels. He believes that the spells he puts there are given to him by the spirits and the things he summons are spirits come to aid him.
Now, there's a wealth of roleplaying there. And lots of hooks for the DM. Maybe Thrud is right and he is being guided by spirits. And maybe some of the spirits aren't so nice. My point is, just because a character looks munchkin on paper, doesn't make it munchkin.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 18, 2003 2:26:54 GMT -5
(Doesn't change my opinion of 3e, though. ) GOOD! Really, simply becuase some people prefer one type of gaming over another says nothing either positive or neagative about the quality of either type. Hey, I really enjoy playing Marvel Super Heroes (the old version) as much as I enjoy any type of gaming. Lords, talk about "cheap and plasticine"; the game itself is predicated on four color, spandex idealism. Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 18, 2003 3:48:47 GMT -5
Let's flog this dead horse somemore aye?
Now, before you dragged this into a 2E sniping thread, which is entitled Dice Rolling Conventions, and is meant to be specificly in 2E, as this is the 2E forum, I would LOVE to talk about ideas there with you and anyone else interested far more than I would like to rehash this. Yet again.
But...
Hussar: Don't go over to Planet. Stay right here. Where the boards are nice and fresh and new. I can name four or five threads where 2e players have jumped in to slam 3e, yet I cannot find a single thread that was started to slam 2e. Not one. Even this thread was specifically started to slam 3e.
Draxy: You know, Husar, you are simply amazing! This thread was started to talk about Dice Rolling Conventions, specificly in 2E.
Man, what is up with you? Not everything is about either YOU or your particular favorite anything.
Is that plain enough?
Hussar: You jumped into the Power Plays thread specifically to slam 3e.
Draxy: And you jumped into this one for what appears a similiar purpose. Doesn't that seem a bit self righteous to you as well?
Hussar:The only reason I come back with shots is because 2e players start them. Poke me and I'll poke back.
Draxy: Hell, don't even think about you and you'll poke back, because you seem to take everything said in any context as an attack on you personally.
Poke me, specificly though, in this manner, and I too will poke back.
Hussar: One thing I will agree with you though is that I've almost never seen an elf played as anything but a human with infravision. That I'll agree with 100%. But, again, that's a problem with the players and not the game system itself. I went so far as to ban elves from my 2e campaigns. Now that I play in Scarred Lands, where they give very good and original backgrounds for the elves, I find the guy who plays an elf to play it very very well. At least so far. Give it some time and we'll see.
Draxy: I also never said that I've never seen one played well... specificly I did not say that because I have seen it protrayed beautifully... by one player; out of several dozens. Nor does THAT say anything about any specific system as any system that has elves included (most in this genre) faces the same dilema.
Hussar: As far as the wizard with a 9 int goes, if I played him long enough, he would get a 10 int and access to 0 level spells. Even longer and he would get access to 4th level spells, eventually.
Draxy: And if he started with a 6 intelligence you would still be able to call him a wizard and EVENTUALLY (if he survived... unlikely if he's dumber than a box of rocks and so bull headed that he insists on trying to be a winged fish when he was born a mammal) he could get his ten intelligence and start casting 0 level and 1st level spells. At about 16th level. In AD&D 2E I can do something similiar, if I have the ability, at 2nd level... and not at all if I don't have the ability.
Forrest Gump shall never be a nuclear physicist. Oh well! The injustice of it is something that I will definately sleep well with having.
Hussar: Haven't you read any of the Discworld novels? Rincewind mean anything to you? A fantasy character who cannot cast spells. Admittedly it's satire, but, if I wanted to play that character, I could.
Draxy: So could I in 2E. I've done it personally. I rolled a charcter with a 16 dex and a 17 intel and (because we also randomly generate social status and the like background details as well before deciding what the character will be) a social status of lower lower class... the bastard son of an escaped slave.
Now, I could have had the rationale that he was found and trained by a Mage who saw his potential, but it seemed to me more reasonable to protray him as a boy who grew up (in the slums of Amn) as a thief, who ALWAYS wanted to be a Mage (specificly an Illusionist) and finally got his chance after hitting (in Haurumann's case) 3rd level. He had been hobnobbing with the party's two mages from the start... pestering them continuously, but asking all the right questions and generally demonstrating the requisite intellect and interest. They rangled him an apprenticeship with a noted Illusionist and he (with that 17 intel) blossomed into a Wizard/Illusionist in just two short years.
Hussar: See, you see being a wizard as simply casting spells.
Draxy: There you putting words into my mouth again. I said that the "benchmark" of being a Wizard is casting spells... and it is.
Hussar: I see being a failed wizard as an excellent role playing opportunity.
Draxy: I have to in the past... with another character who never did become one since he started with an 8 intel. HE however carried every trinket, gadget and geegaw and finally, when he finally got the chance to, every potion and magic item he could get his hands on. He was the classic failed Wizard. Now, if he had come across a magic item that could have raised his intelligence high enough he could have then become a mage indeed... instead of the mage-wannabe that he always was.
Hussar: Granted, I wouldn't play this character since it has the half life of a snowball in July, but it would be interesting for a while.
Draxy: A snowball in July is right. And one on the equator.
Now one thing that 3E DOES give you is an easier way to crossover. Say you go Warrior or Rogue for 4 levels with that 9 intelligence and then raise the intel so that you actually can cast spells...
The point about it with 2E though, to me makes far more sense. It takes a good while to learn to do this for someone utterly suited to it... for a person barely marginal in the area I would say that it should take an order of magnitude as long. For an active character, that's too long in any campaign I've ever seen.
Hussar: Take the barbarian/conjurer example above. Thrud was it? Now, on the surface, that looks entirely munchkin. Yet, if you take the time, you could make that a very viable character. Thrud begins out as a barbarian from a northern tribe. The shamans in his community ...
Draxy: Shammans and shammanism is religious in nature... not attributed to classic magic. The magic they use is "god magic", NOT intellectualized magic. I never moaned about a Barbarian that becomes a Priest of Obadhai at 5th level... the scenario you have layed out for that is immenately viable...
BUT, according to the 3E PHB: "Barbarians don't trust what they don't understand, and that includes Wizardy, which they call book magic."
Pretty definitive aye? Too, it shows why the Barbarian/Conjuror is a stretch.
Now, in 2E, if we want what you've described we can build a Priest, from a barbarian culture (use the Barbarian kit for example) who does everything you layed out. We can even delay when he gets access to his spells to protray the exact case you described (and thus have the points available to make him a hell of a warrior atop it all), or if he has a high enough stats, or gains them (which a decent DM can always find a reason for or a way to do) he can become one later in his carreer and have started as a Warrior.
Hussar: Now, there's a wealth of roleplaying there. And lots of hooks for the DM. Maybe Thrud is right and he is being guided by spirits.
Draxy: In which case we are back to our Shamman type... which is a clerical type even takenm from a historical perspective.
Hussar: And maybe some of the spirits aren't so nice. My point is, just because a character looks munchkin on paper, doesn't make it munchkin.
Draxy: No, nor did I say that it had to be... simply that it was easier to abuse it in that specific case, which is made easier by 3E.
I never said that 3E HAS to be abused. I played it exclusively for a year and a bit and we surely didn't abuse it.
I've simply said that it is easier to abuse, which you've admitted yourself, and that from what I've seen it is MORE often abused BECAUSE it's easier to abuse.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 18, 2003 4:37:45 GMT -5
You know Draxy, you're right, I brought up 3e first in this conversation. My first reference to 3e was this:
Not exactly flaming level, nor was it even a slam on 2e. It was an honest question about why you prefered 2e to 3e based on the idea of dice rolls. To which you answered:
You certainly implied here that 3e players were all munchkin players who play "bull dookey" characters. Note, again, it's the 2e player who starts the flaming.
BTW, you are assuming that shaman have to be clerics. They do not. Even in 2e there were savage wizard types in the Complete Wizard's Handbook that fit the bill of shaman perfectly well. There is no reason to make him a cleric. With a bit of imagination and a little creativity, this could be an eminently playable character.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 18, 2003 9:38:31 GMT -5
Hussar, don't interpret please, just read.
"3E just plain simple DOES lend itself to..."
Do you see that? Lend itself to? How in the nine Hells is that the same as "You certainly implied here that 3e players are all..."
Where in the name of God do you get "all" out of "lends itself to"?
Are you trying to be this obtuse? Or is it really something you're missing when you read, or is it a martyr complex?
And yes, I am assuming Shamans have to be clerics.
Shamans are inextricably linked to religion.
Shaman: 1)a priest or priestess who uses magic for the purposes of curing the sick, divining the hidden and controlling events.
That is from Webster's Online but my laptop has a bug and I can't cut and paste.
The idea of the Savage Wizard is something very different to though. Culturally they are outcasts living within the tribe. They are feared and respected, but seldom loved and
"If the tribe becomes convinced that the Wizard is consorting with demons or otherwise stirring up forces better left alone, they may well expell the Wizard from the tribe with the threat of execution should he return".
This does leave the door open if the character is open minded enough... in 2E (which you vilified as "a stagnant, vague system with half assed rules") at least, where this is from, but not in 3E in the same manner, which IS where we were discussing it from.
Yeah... 2E is so vague that a lawful character must behave in a lawful manner while a 3E "true lawful" can follow a "personal" code. Gads.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 19, 2003 0:05:49 GMT -5
Seems to me, but I remember a kit called an Anagakok ( found here positron.jfet.org/adnd/wizard/wizard03.htm ) A wizard kit that was accepted in savage societies. BTW, take a look at the Savage Wizard Kit and this interesting quote: It's interesting that you will only use the quotes which help your arguement and not the ones that directly prove you wrong. Have you ever run for office? While it's true that summoning dark forces can be a problem, it usually leads to "one way that a Savage Wizard might link up with an adventuring party." And, a good conjurer rarely summons demons. So, I have a perfectly acceptable way for Thrud to become a Barbarian/Conjurer that is even supported by material from 2e. Either way, with a little imagination, Thrud the Barbarian/Conjurer can be an interesting character to play. But, under 2e rules, without major reworking, I cannot play him. In 3e I can. That's why I prefer 3e. Umm, I get that out of being an English teacher for the past 8 years and having a great deal more knowledge about the English language than you apparently do. If you use that phrase, you aren't implying it, you are outright saying that 3e is more munchkin than 2e. Particularly when you use the phrase "plain and simple". I'm not a martyr, just sick and bloody tired of every time I turn around, some 2e player with a pickle up his or her posterior jumping up and down screaming munchkin. Particularly when they are talking out of their posterior. Every single point you've brought up here I've shot down in flames. 3e leads to higher scores - False. 2e leads to higher scores since it gives bonuses far in excess to 3e for having higher scores. 3e is far more open to abuse - false. 2e is equally open to abuse, although the abuse happens at the time of character generation. When I can make my cleric of Kosuth, who can cast wizard fire spells as cleric spells without a spell book and can summon fire elementals without a chance for failure or losing control at 5th level. 3e multiclasses are far more powerful - False. Because of the experience tables in 2e, a 2e multiclass generally only gives up a single level of one class to gain multiple levels of another. 3e alignments are vague - False. See the thread on the 3e board. And, see the 1000+ pages of the palassassin debate where 2e players couldn't even agree whether or not assassination was evil. What you may personally think is irrelavent. The point is, there was absolutely no agreement on the issue after 2 or 3 years of debate.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 29, 2003 10:12:29 GMT -5
And, just to stick a nail in Draxy's final arguement, take a look at WOTC's site for NPC's and pregenerated characters. The vast majority are well rounded characters that could be easily placed into almost any campaign. And, that's from the Official site. One of Draxy's arguments was that the posted characters at PlanetADND were mostly munchkin. Well, I don't know as that part of the site has now gone bye bye. But, I can point the reader to the WOTC site which has several dozen pregenerated characters. The archive can be found here: www.wizards.com/dnd/archive.asp?x=dnd/cc,3
|
|
agamoto
Soldier
Greetings and salutations one and all!!
Posts: 239
|
Post by agamoto on Apr 12, 2004 9:42:21 GMT -5
I jumped in a bit late here, but to get things back on track.
I prefer 4d4+4. Athasian style rolls.
|
|
|
Post by Torack on Apr 15, 2004 7:24:39 GMT -5
Oh!Oh!Oh! Can I have go at this immensely interresting 2e vs. 3e debate? Please? Anyhoo, the very best way, IMO, to determine whether a 2e Advanced Dungeons and Dragons character is 'better' (Notice how I used the '? Good.) then a 3e Dungeons and Dragons character is to compare both the average characters (10 in all stats, before racial bonusses) and maximum abilities (18 in all stats, before racial bonusses) for all races and classes, and then set that character up to face the same foe and compare experience etc. at different levels. Yes I am well aware that in 2e Advanced Dungeons and Dragons normal people would have a 9 in all stats (Before applying racial bonusses). Anyhoo, both of you make some excellent points. However both of you also tend to show off your lack of knowledge on each others versions. Again, in my opinion, maybe a 3rd Edition Dungeon and Dragons character is slightly more powerfull then a 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons character, however a 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons monster is also slightly more difficult to defeat then it's 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons equivalent. So that point is moot, since it evens out nicely in the long run. Granted, a 1st level, 3rd Edition character defeating an Orc gains 150 xp. Whereas a 1st level 2nd Edition character gains only 15 xp. However at higher levels this experience becomes less and less untill the character reaches level 9, where he doesn't gain anymore experience for defeating a single Orc. The 2nd Edition Character will gain 15xp no matter what his level. This, in my opinion evens out nicely. (Maybe the Orc wasn't the best example but, you get the point.) With regard to stats, getting an 18 in 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons (Where scores range from 1 - infinity) is not as significant as getting an 18 in 2nd Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (Where scores range from 1 - 25). Put that in perspective, even though the odds in both are the same. Both games will allow you to choose which type of roll you will use, whether it is the precious 4d6 (drop lowest) or the 3d6. Check your Dungeon Master Guide if you don't believe me. As for multiclass levels, you have a choice. The Conversion Manual provides you with a couple of options: a) 1. Find the Highest level has reached in any class. 2. Divide the level of every other class by 3 and round down 3. Add step 1 to step 2. 4. Divide them as you see fit. (p.3 of the Conversion Manual) b) 1. Subtract the minimum amount of experience required for a character to reach a class level from the character's total experience. 2. Then subtract the minimum needed experience to have gained her current level from the experience for her level+1 3. Divide step 1/step 2 4. Subtract the minimum no. of experience needed for a similar character in 3rd edition of the same level 5. Multiply step 3 by step 4. 6. Add this to the minimum experience of a character of similar level. (p.14 of the Conversion Manual.) If you are going to compare versions at least get it right!
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Apr 15, 2004 12:20:10 GMT -5
Killing an orc while at 9th level in 2nd ed. gives you no experience. The fight must be reasonably difficult to gain experience. This is mentioned in the 2nd ed DMG under the Experience chapter.
|
|
|
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Mar 1, 2005 15:32:38 GMT -5
1st set Roll 1: 5, [4], 5, 6 = 16. Roll 2: 4, 2, [1], 5 = 11. Roll 3: 6, 5, [1], 6 = 17. Roll 4: 4, 6, 5, [2] = 15. Roll 5: 6, [2], 4, 3 = 13. Roll 6: 6, 5, 5, [3] = 16. Roll 7: [2], 6, 6, 2 = 14. 102
2nd set
Roll 1: [2], 5, 3, 2 = 10. Roll 2: 5, [1], 5, 5 = 15. Roll 3: 5, 5, [1], 1 = 11. Roll 4: 2, 3, 6, [1] = 11. Roll 5: 5, 5, [2], 4 = 14. Roll 6: [2], 2, 5, 6 = 13. Roll 7: 2, [1], 4, 1 = 7. 88
3rd
Roll 1: 3, [2], 4, 4 = 11. Roll 2: [3], 6, 5, 4 = 15. Roll 3: 6, 3, [1], 6 = 15. Roll 4: [1], 1, 1, 3 = 5. Roll 5: 6, 5, [2], 6 = 17. Roll 6: 6, [4], 6, 6 = 18. Roll 7: [2], 3, 2, 4 = 9. 90
4th
Roll 1: [2], 6, 2, 3 = 11. Roll 2: [1], 5, 4, 3 = 12. Roll 3: [1], 2, 1, 6 = 9. Roll 4: 6, 6, 6, [3] = 18. Roll 5: 4, 2, [1], 5 = 11. Roll 6: [2], 5, 5, 5 = 15. Roll 7: 6, 5, 6, [3] = 17. 94 5th
Roll 1: 6, [1], 3, 4 = 13. Roll 2: 5, [3], 3, 4 = 12. Roll 3: 6, [3], 4, 5 = 15. Roll 4: [2], 5, 3, 2 = 10. Roll 5: 6, 6, 4, [2] = 16. Roll 6: 4, [3], 5, 4 = 13. Roll 7: [3], 4, 4, 4 = 12. 91 6th
Roll 1: [3], 4, 3, 3 = 10. Roll 2: 4, 4, 6, [3] = 14. Roll 3: 3, [2], 5, 6 = 14. Roll 4: 6, [1], 1, 3 = 10. Roll 5: 6, [1], 2, 2 = 10. Roll 6: 5, [2], 3, 6 = 14. Roll 7: [2], 6, 6, 5 = 17. 89 7th
Roll 1: 5, 5, [1], 3 = 13. Roll 2: 3, 3, [2], 3 = 9. Roll 3: 6, [2], 4, 5 = 15. Roll 4: [1], 4, 2, 2 = 8. Roll 5: 4, 3, 3, [1] = 10. Roll 6: 6, 4, [3], 3 = 13. Roll 7: [1], 5, 2, 3 = 10. 78
total--- 632
Hussars total--- 537
Good God!!! Out of 49 rolls, I got only ONE 18 and 4-17's, 3-16's, 5-15's, 5-14's, 6-13's, 3-12's, 6-11's, 7-10's, 3-9's, 1-8, 1-7, and 1-5!!!!!
But i got LESS 18's then Hussar...... interesting......
|
|