| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Krandor |
Posted - 04 Aug 2003 : 17:59:41
This might be a dumb question, but I will ask it anyway. A friend of mine said that you could wear a helm in correlation to your armour and shied to get added def and magical abilities. Is this true? |
| 18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Cult_Leader |
Posted - 18 Aug 2003 : 22:30:50
8th edition for magic is not that bad. I sold out like three weeks after it came out in booster packs... ... ... Its not bad but not that good either. As for 3rd cleaning up 2-ed.... 3rd edition is fun to play but 2nd ed makes it so people cant just out right break/snap a character. 3rd ed its just to damn easy to break them. Im hoping that this new 3.5 is going to allow the freedom of 3rd edition, and some of the guide lines and mechanics of 2nd ed. I dought it will though.... It might just end up being easier to snap a char and get the label of twink... who knows.
Ps: 8th edition boxes suck. Do not buy them, You might not even get all the cards, A friend of mine bought a box of 8th and didnt even get a single armaggedon nore a few other things. He got bent over wizards desk on that deal.... |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 07:03:28
I can understand that. I only play semi-regularly now, since D&D takes up most of my gaming time.
As for the rules changes, well...the last rule updates were June this year. The last time the rules were updated and revised was February 2001.
Of course now with the main MTG site, and all it's help available to players, it has really set out to promote a healthly image for the game once again, in terms of easy playing and access to quality assistance.
|
| Yasraena |
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 06:39:10
quote:
Originally posted by Sage of Perth
Some very interesting points of note Yasraena. However,
You said -
quote:
That, and now how WotC is basically turning it into another Magic the Gathering with a revision of the basic rules not 18 months after the initial release of the first books. I went through that with MtG, for about a year before I just stopped playing. I won't go through that with D&D.
I think that is a little unfair. As a long-time fan and player of MTG (from the early days of 1993), I have only seen this problem twice - with the coming of the Fourth and Fifth editions. In fact the latest revised edition, 8th, was for the most part put together at the request of the online community. Besides each new and reprint edition has only made those select cards all the better. And lets face it, mechanics wise, the cards of 7th/8th edition work a lot more efficiently than those of the 2nd or 3rd.
Considering that I haven't played Magic since 1997 (isn't that about the time 4th and 5th came out?), I can't refute what you said about the later editions, Sage. All I remeber is that it turned into a very frustrating game because the rules would change every frigging month. It got to the point where me and the people I played with would argue about the ever changing rules and errata more that we actually played. There would be times when we'd actually call WotC helpline to ask them what the outcome was of a certain combination against another. It turned into more confontation than fun. In fact, it wasn't fun at all in the end, which was the main reason I stopped playing.
Besides that, if you thought roleplaying was an expensive hobby, Magic was just insane. You literally had to spend 100's of dollars to keep your decks up to date with the best and most powerful cards. True, the actual object of the game was to create the best card combos with what you had, and to trade with your fellow players, but no one I knew at the time did just that. It really turned into Magic:The Addiction for us near the end. Getting a new pack or box of cards was like getting a fix. To prarphrase yet again, we all just decided to stop 'cold turkey' and sell our collections and concentrate on roleplaying again. Looking back on that now, I think it was the best hobby decision we ever made. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 05:15:51
Some very interesting points of note Yasraena. However,
You said -
quote:
That, and now how WotC is basically turning it into another Magic the Gathering with a revision of the basic rules not 18 months after the initial release of the first books. I went through that with MtG, for about a year before I just stopped playing. I won't go through that with D&D.
I think that is a little unfair. As a long-time fan and player of MTG (from the early days of 1993), I have only seen this problem twice - with the coming of the Fourth and Fifth editions. In fact the latest revised edition, 8th, was for the most part put together at the request of the online community. Besides each new and reprint edition has only made those select cards all the better. And lets face it, mechanics wise, the cards of 7th/8th edition work a lot more efficiently than those of the 2nd or 3rd.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 09 Aug 2003 : 04:58:53
That we did, and they're valid points, every one of them. |
| Yasraena |
Posted - 08 Aug 2003 : 21:45:35
I will say up front, that I've never played in a 3E game. All I've done is read the PHB. Maybe I should. It might change my mind, but I doubt it.
First off, I have to say that I'm the type of person who doesn't like change for the sake of change. If it ain't broke, then don't try and fix it.
Not that 2E is perfect (far from it) but it is a tried and true system, even with all it's faults, arbitrary rules and all. The system is ballanced in how you gain power and ability, and has literally so much information already created for it, that we would never be able to use it all in our lifetimes.
I also have a substantial amount of money invested in the 2E system with all the books, supplements, software, etc that there are for it (and I still don't have everything that was made for it), so I don't relish having to re-invest all over again.
I have the 3E PHB, and after reading through it, my main and biggest problem is that (IMO)it isn't geared towards roleplaying. It's geared towards rollplaying. The system in general gives way too much power to low level PC's, without them really having to earn it, and high level PCs are well, just god-like. It's munchkinism at it's worst, basically. At least I view it that way.
Another thing is that the system's gotten so complicated now, that it's really not D&D anymore. I really liked the simplistic system of 1E and 2E. If I want to get this into specifics, I'll play Rolemaster. It's a much better system for that type of gaming (again IMO, and my group's).
That really is my biggest problem with the system as a whole. That, and now how WotC is basically turning it into another Magic the Gathering with a revision of the basic rules not 18 months after the initial release of the first books. I went through that with MtG, for about a year before I just stopped playing. I won't go through that with D&D.
Now, there are some good things about 3E, but not about the system itself. I like the new info on the Realms in general, and how the new material is coming up to date in it's history and goings on since the last relevant 2E supplement came out. Always interested in the fluff side of things.
And the main thing I like about it (although I wish they had done this with 2E instead) is that now it's an open license so other people besides WotC can create things for the system. The more the merrier and the more diverse.
Sorry for being so long winded, but you guys asked.  |
| The Sage |
Posted - 08 Aug 2003 : 06:21:28
Mournblade said -
quote:
To me it seemed there were too many arbitrary rules in 2nd edition.
I can agree with that. Some of those rules, I felt, were simply 'add-ons', a quick attempt to patch up some holes in the overall 2e mechanics - if you have ever played in the Planescape campaign setting, you know exactly what I am talking about. What the system really needed was a complete overhaul. The 3e system is smooth (at least for the most part), and any incorporation of new rules and/or mechanics is virtually problem-free.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 08 Aug 2003 : 05:48:37
Yes, I was the same way about the new 3e version, and still am to some respect . . . but they've put in several good bits. For instance, with the feats, now Alertness isn't alone. You have other feats that give bonuses to pairs of similar skills. Of course, that would have easily been covered in a corrections suppliment.
Other than that, something like the haste spell seems a trifle more balanced (still not completely decided, though). Of course, the ranger class is much better now. The druid . . . well, I thought it was good at first, but then when I looked at the original version, I realized not much had changed. I just hadn't looked at that class closely before.
Yasraena, I'd like to second Mournblade's question. Granted, I haven't had much experience with 2e rules, not outside the computer games, but 3e seems more structured. Not saying I think it's the best, I'm just wondering if you just don't like it in general, or if it's something specific. If it's the former, I can easily understand that. I had some trouble adjusting when I bought my PHB, and all I had been exposed to before was the relatively simple computer game rules. And I'm talking pre-Baldur's Gate games, which were really quite simple. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 07 Aug 2003 : 20:28:50
Yasraena I am surprised that you think 3e is not better than 2nd edition. Not that I fault you for it in anyway, but I think that 3e cleaned up alot of the flaws with 2nd edition (which I used to play fanatically by the way). To me it seemed there were too many arbitrary rules in 2nd edition. What about 2nd edition do you think is better than 3e? I admit when 3rd edition came out I was REAL sceptical, but they seemed to have done a pretty good job. |
| Yasraena |
Posted - 07 Aug 2003 : 20:21:36
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
quote:
Originally posted by Yasraena
Are you talking 2E or 3E?
I don't know jack about 3E, but in 2E, you could wear a helmet in addition to any other type of armor and ger a -1 to your AC. If it was a magical helmet, you would get an additional + to your saving throws. (+1 helmet would gicve a +1 to all saves)
I thought a 2e nonmagical helmet would just protect from critical hits, and it served no other purpose?
I'm not sure how it works in 3e. I'd been thinking that it was just part of the armor, but could be removed if you wanted a magical one instead.
Haven't paid that much attention to armor, really. I've only created two characters, being a newbie at this. After that, I think the next one would be a fighter aiming for the Duelist PrC. None of these are exactly heavy on armor, so I've concentrated on other things.
Yasraena, you should take a look at it. Even if you don't want to switch, it has a lot of things in it that a normally 2e game could benefit from.
I was talking strictly PHB and DMG from 2E. Criticals were introduced as an option for 2E in an issue of Dragon if I remember right and weren't part of the original game mechanics.
Yeah, I admit there is some stuff in 3E that is cool and can be useful to a 2E game. It's the system as a whole that I have issues with.
I actually have several 3E sourcebooks on The Realms, and use them primarily for their continuing world and character development properties and ideas(aka fluff). But that's really all I use them for. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Aug 2003 : 13:42:10
Actually keeping in theme with the Word and PDF 2e files, I am pretty sure there is an RTF or PDF 2e Planescape campaign setting floating around in the ether somewhere...
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 07 Aug 2003 : 13:33:22
Well, I've Word and PDF files for a lot of 2e info. In it is the 2e PHB, MM, and DMG, the Player's Companion Set, and the Arms and Equipment Guide. Haven't read any of them. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Aug 2003 : 13:19:28
Do you have the rulebooks for AD&D 2e?.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 07 Aug 2003 : 13:02:00
Ah. Okay. I've very little knowledge of 2e mechanics. Sometime I ought to look into them more. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Aug 2003 : 12:52:39
Bookwyrm said -
quote:
I thought a 2e nonmagical helmet would just protect from critical hits, and it served no other purpose?
That is a carry over from the 2e mechanics that were used as a basis in the CRPGs' Baldur's Gate I and II. The actual 2e mechanics for AD&D allowed some non-magical helmets to provide other things beside the immunity to critical hits. For example, damage from missile hits, or certain weapons.
The bonus to AC is just one example.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 07 Aug 2003 : 08:57:48
quote:
Originally posted by Yasraena
Are you talking 2E or 3E?
I don't know jack about 3E, but in 2E, you could wear a helmet in addition to any other type of armor and ger a -1 to your AC. If it was a magical helmet, you would get an additional + to your saving throws. (+1 helmet would gicve a +1 to all saves)
I thought a 2e nonmagical helmet would just protect from critical hits, and it served no other purpose?
I'm not sure how it works in 3e. I'd been thinking that it was just part of the armor, but could be removed if you wanted a magical one instead.
Haven't paid that much attention to armor, really. I've only created two characters, being a newbie at this. After that, I think the next one would be a fighter aiming for the Duelist PrC. None of these are exactly heavy on armor, so I've concentrated on other things.
Yasraena, you should take a look at it. Even if you don't want to switch, it has a lot of things in it that a normally 2e game could benefit from. |
| Yasraena |
Posted - 05 Aug 2003 : 06:13:53
Are you talking 2E or 3E?
I don't know jack about 3E, but in 2E, you could wear a helmet in addition to any other type of armor and ger a -1 to your AC. If it was a magical helmet, you would get an additional + to your saving throws. (+1 helmet would gicve a +1 to all saves) |
| Mythander |
Posted - 04 Aug 2003 : 20:04:08
Magical Abilities: yes, it counts as headgear.
Defense: No
|
|
|
