Jump to content


Photo

3E vs AD&D


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#1 KiwiRose

KiwiRose

    Necromancer

  • Member
  • 106 posts

Posted 27 May 2004 - 07:10 AM

I've played both version... and I am ashamed to admit I like PARTS of 3E better... but not all of it. I play and strange mesh of both sets of rules. Haven't been playing lately though... I've been playing Vampire the Masqurade.
Posted Image

#2 -Guest-

-Guest-
  • Guest

Posted 27 May 2004 - 07:33 AM

3e.

Personally, I'm waiting for someone to seriously defend class/level restrictions.

I've considered finding where that person lives and killing them, but I think I'll settle for generic non-active contempt.

#3 Feanor

Feanor

    The Elven Lord

  • Member
  • 1808 posts

Posted 27 May 2004 - 07:39 AM

3E is far more realistic than the second one.

#4 KiwiRose

KiwiRose

    Necromancer

  • Member
  • 106 posts

Posted 27 May 2004 - 07:40 AM

I think I should have put 3.5 in the title too... it IS better than 3E, so... yeah. I do think I like 3E/3.5 better.

Edited by KiwiRose, 27 May 2004 - 07:40 AM.

Posted Image

#5 Immortality

Immortality

    Love Boat Captain

  • Member
  • 1616 posts

Posted 27 May 2004 - 08:30 AM

I agree with you, KiwiRose, i like 3e more on some parts and less in others. For instance Char Generation has loads more options, and the ability of changing class when you level up is a +. But i also miss the multi-class. I tried to make some kind of multi class character (cleric/mage) and i found out, to my surprise that my 2Ed cleric/mage can kick my 3ed cleric/mage's butt.

Overall, 3e is way better, but... bad thing to whatever happened to multiclassing... :)
CLAN DLAN, your friendly neighborhood spanish community. Woo!

I am a retired translator. If you need my assistance, or need somebody to translate something for you, you can send me a PM. I don't check SHS regularly. Thanks!! : D

#6 -Notmrt-

-Notmrt-
  • Guest

Posted 27 May 2004 - 08:38 AM

I would go into the reason but it would take hours
i far prefer 3E because of the total freedom of it and its far more sencible

#7 KiwiRose

KiwiRose

    Necromancer

  • Member
  • 106 posts

Posted 27 May 2004 - 10:23 AM

I agree with you, KiwiRose, i like 3e more on some parts and less in others. For instance Char Generation has loads more options, and the ability of changing class when you level up is a +. But i also miss the multi-class. I tried to make some kind of multi class character (cleric/mage) and i found out, to my surprise that my 2Ed cleric/mage can kick my 3ed cleric/mage's butt.

Overall, 3e is way better, but... bad thing to whatever happened to multiclassing... :)

Yeah, that dissapointed me too. I LOVE the feats though, much much fun! ^_^
Posted Image

#8 cmyster

cmyster
  • Member
  • 105 posts

Posted 27 May 2004 - 12:09 PM

I think that some restriction should be made. Some spell casting classes + monk, should be picked at the start of a game and a character shouldn't be able to multiclass into them. Wizard, Priest, Paladin, Druid, Monk all of these become first level after many years of learning the craft, and a warrior or a barbarian after killing some Orcs can't suddenly become wizards. Maybe you can do Ranger => Druid, or Sorcerer/Bard => Wizard, but that?s it
[FONT=Times][SIZE=1]
Thus it was that Rincewind,hurrying through the crowded, flare-lit evening bazaars of Morpork with the Luggage trundling behind him, jostled a tall dark figure, turned to deliver a few suitable curses, and beheld Death.
It had to be Death. No-one else went around with empty eye sockets and, of course, the scythe over one shoulder was another clue.

#9 Mongoose87

Mongoose87
  • Member
  • 288 posts

Posted 27 May 2004 - 05:13 PM

It's not like getting one level of wizard makes you MUCH of a wizard

#10 Celestine

Celestine

    Elven Maiden

  • Modder
  • 4538 posts

Posted 27 May 2004 - 05:25 PM

I like parts of 3e better too, especially the character creation process. Finally my soceress can wave a blade. :) The amour stacking part confuses me and I still haven't figured it out. Also like how the bard class now has access to cleric spells and memorize spells like the way the soreror kit does. :) Also like the feats selection.

#11 MERLANCE

MERLANCE
  • Member
  • 55 posts

Posted 27 May 2004 - 07:31 PM

Overall, I prefer 3e/3.5e.

However, 2e Raise Dead was so much more pleasant. 3.5 dead raising makes it far more worthwhile to just stay dead. You have to have 5000gp worth of diamonds, and you lose a level. Of course, True Ressurection removes the need for level loss, but first you have to find a 17th level cleric, and pay 25000gp worth of diamonds, plus the cost of casting the spell.

Feats are definitely a plus. So are skills. Weapon proficiencies and armor use are also good.

I do miss THAC0; not the system of it, just the term.

Besides, in 3e you can do damage in the billions. http://boards1.wizar...threadid=142565

#12 -Notmrt-

-Notmrt-
  • Guest

Posted 27 May 2004 - 10:52 PM

I never did understand why raising the dead was so expensive °_°especialy if you cast the spell youself °_°
I mean generaly i will just ignore those rules as they are insanely silly

#13 khay

khay

    Swords to Rust, Hearts to Dust

  • Staff
  • 1719 posts

Posted 27 May 2004 - 11:34 PM

I find it perfectly normal for Raise dead to cost that much.

#14 -Notmrt-

-Notmrt-
  • Guest

Posted 27 May 2004 - 11:51 PM

Well if you pay a priest to do it i can understand but doing it your self °_°

#15 MERLANCE

MERLANCE
  • Member
  • 55 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 12:07 AM

I find it perfectly normal for Raise dead to cost that much.

Explain.

Using the reccomended wealth by character level, Raising the Dead is not an option until mid levels. By 5th level, a character would have slightly more than enough value in gear or gold to get himself raised. At 6th level, the character would have enough to have the spell cast, but would be so lacking in gear that he would be unable to cope with any monsters of his challenge rating. Plus, losing the level as well as the monetary value of his stuff would cripple him doubly, making him more of a weakness for the rest of the party.

All this is assuming that the characters can obtain the 5000gp in diamonds. Most temples wouldnt have that much around just for raise spells.

And assuming that the characters could find the appropriate value of diamonds... just because the diamonds are worth 5000gp doesnt mean that they will be able to get them for that much. With inflation, taxes, surcharges, and various markups, the characters could wind up paying 6000 or more gold for the diamonds, with the diamonds retaining the same value.

And then there is the difficulty of finding the 9th level priest to cast the spell. You wont find one of those in all but the largest cities. Most large cities arent located near prime adventuring spots, so the charactes would have to truck the corpse around the wilderness, possibly for weeks at a time. Assuming Raise Dead, you HAVE to have the corpse on hand to revive teh character.

if youre in the Forgotten Realms, you only have 10 days to get the character raised, else he is lost to the planes, and can only be brought back with, I think, Wish (I dont recall that segment of the book in perfect accuracy; Limited Wish and Miracle may also work). Then the price would further raise, 5000xp for a mage to cast Wish to bring it back, and most mages wont willingly part with 5000xp, thus costing even more gold!

#16 Vlasák

Vlasák
  • Member
  • 51 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 12:14 AM

AD&D... second edition definitely...

3e is the product of commerce in all ways. 3e books (except core rules) are just the compilations of feats and prestiges, support of role play elements is totally missing. I like only some rules and improvements mentioned in core rules. But the rest is... is bad... just derivates of great AD&D books.

AD&D books such race handbooks (the complete book of elves/dwarves/...), class handbooks (the complete book of paladins/rangers/...), setting guides (all Planescape books, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, ...) are full of ideas, role playing improvements, playing experience is much better at all.
Baldur's Gate II add-on CZ - TC from Dalelands
http://addoncz.gamestar.cz

English forums are opened!

#17 khay

khay

    Swords to Rust, Hearts to Dust

  • Staff
  • 1719 posts

Posted 28 May 2004 - 01:03 AM

Explain? Just for the sake of the thought of being raised from the dead, I believe it`s totally justifiable that it costs that much. Let`s think about it, raising a dead person isn`t that simple from the point of view of realism (relative realism) and since 3E is about making the whole system much more realistic (at least that`s what everyone on its side says), I`d say it`s a pretty normal price to be paid.

Then again if the players want it, the GM can change the price, so it`s not much of a problem, if you ask me.

Easy. Watch your ass and don`t die.

Besides, I`ve always seen the rules as actual guidelines, not something you must bow down to with your every whim. OBAY TO TEH RULES OR YUOR NOT A REAL ROELPLAYER attitude isn`t really a good one concerning D&D (no offense meant to anyone), the main point of playing is to HAVE FUN. If the players talk about lowering the price and the DM agrees -- then why not lower it?

Edited by khayman, 28 May 2004 - 01:09 AM.


#18 -Notmrt-

-Notmrt-
  • Guest

Posted 28 May 2004 - 01:08 AM

Yeah but money is illogical maby something else should be needed heeh

#19 -Wolfie-

-Wolfie-
  • Guest

Posted 28 May 2004 - 01:41 AM

I've always found it best to look at the rules as a guideline then ignore most and run how you want to run *shrugs*

#20 -Notmrt-

-Notmrt-
  • Guest

Posted 28 May 2004 - 01:47 AM

probably for the best that way lol
a good mix of rules ;)