| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lord Rad |
Posted - 09 Sep 2002 : 22:05:44
Right, I need to get a few things straight in my head...
Could anyone please help identify ALL the differences between the 2nd and 3rd edition FR. What did WotC change for the new release?
Now I know that the map of Faerun was trimmed, but I cant see exactly what was altered just by glancing over it.
Also, what about the deities? What changed there?
Rad |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 10 Sep 2009 : 19:23:40
WOO-HOO! We re-started the edition wars! 
Seriously, it's all a matter of taste. Whether it's 2E, 3E, 4E, Original, GURPS, or flipping cards into a hat. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 10 Sep 2009 : 19:19:11
What about Basic to Advanced with Elves and Dwarves being classes... |
| Quale |
Posted - 10 Sep 2009 : 12:57:16
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
A Thay united under Szass Tam would be more united than it is, and would tend to be more sinister than it already is... But there's still going to be a lot of intrigue and factionalism from purely internal forces, and Szass taking over would be of great interest to just about everyone else -- which means that everyone in the Realms is going to be doing their best to stir up that particular pot. More aggressive, more undead, more Machiavellian fun and games. Externally, Thay would appear stronger and more sinister, but the reality would be that it would in some ways be more divided than before.
Thanks for all the ideas. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 10 Sep 2009 : 11:37:41
quote:
Originally posted by Uzzy
Make everything a Ability Check. Wanna listen to someone, make a wisdom check. Want to disarm a trap, make a dexterity check. Sure, you'd need a bit of work, but the basics are there.
Anyway! 3rd Edition DnD is quite the improvement on 2nd Edition. High rolls always being good, no silly race restrictions, unified XP and level structure etc. Mechanically it's a lot cleaner.
And has a lot less charm. TSR D&D was never the best game for purely roleplaying purposes, but it had a feel of its own. Included in that was the restrictions and various combinations of rules and rolls that were without unified form. 3ed. might have cleaned up the system, but it took away much of what made D&D what it was.
Yepp, personal opinion, but thats what both of us have here. |
| Uzzy |
Posted - 10 Sep 2009 : 06:09:42
Make everything a Ability Check. Wanna listen to someone, make a wisdom check. Want to disarm a trap, make a dexterity check. Sure, you'd need a bit of work, but the basics are there.
Anyway! 3rd Edition DnD is quite the improvement on 2nd Edition. High rolls always being good, no silly race restrictions, unified XP and level structure etc. Mechanically it's a lot cleaner. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 10 Sep 2009 : 03:18:55
You need skills the moment you find a trap, a locked door, or want to listen to see whether the sleeping monster is waking up. All of those are staples of dungeon crawls, and all of them can be done with the barest of bones 2e ruleset.
Though, looking over my post, I realize my use of the term "hack and slash" might have been a poor one. Those games were dungeon crawls, which are almost by definition hack and slash. If all you want is tactical simulation, sure, you can drop skills. That's where D&D evolved from in the first place, after all. But if you want to dungeon crawl, you can't. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 10 Sep 2009 : 02:00:09
I'm sorry, Hoondatha, but I have to disagree. If you want to run a straight hack-n-slash game, it's very easy to drop 3E skills and still run the game without problem.
And, not to keep badgering about Pathfinder, but they did get rid of half-skills and 4x on the first level stuff... |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 10 Sep 2009 : 01:22:20
Sure. Speeds play considerably if you're not used to them, and makes the game easier for newbies. The first two games I was in, back when I was in middle school, didn't use proficiencies. We decided it was too complex, and it was taking too much time to create our characters. So we dropped them. For a straight hack and slash dungeon crawl, which was all we were doing at that point, proficiencies are pretty superfluous. Later, once we'd gotten a handle on the system, and were a bit older, we put them back in.
Skills are, let's face it, way more of a pain than even proficiencies. This is especially true for the DM, when you're trying to create NPC's and adversaries, each with multiple classes, with a level greater than one. They're more realistic than proficiencies, with people getting better and things over time, which is a point in their favor, but there's a lot of math involved in ranks and half ranks and shifting bonuses in various situations, and for shorter, simpler games I often wish I could just turn them off to speed things up.
Unfortunately, I can't. The 3e system is very tightly coupled. Turn off skills, and the rogue breaks completely and half a dozen other things at least get messed up. That was the real reason I picked that example, because it's one of the more obvious analogues between the two systems, but with one you can turn them off at will, and the other you're stuck with, whether you like it or not. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 10 Sep 2009 : 00:57:53
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
That's one of the great things about 2e, it was very modular. It was built specifically to have a bare-bones of required stuff, and then everything else was optional and could be swapped out at will with very little trouble. Try doing that with 3e. Don't like proficiencies? Zip! Gone. Let's see you get rid of 3e skills.
Can you give me an example here and tell me what good it does of ridding a charakter of proficiencies or skills? |
| Apex |
Posted - 09 Sep 2009 : 18:11:10
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
The exceptional ability scores were part of the exceeding racial limits rules, where you had to have exceptional scores in your prime requisits to even be allowed to advance beyond whatever level was set.
It was just a stupid and arbitrary system. Quadruple XP to advance? When just before they were advancing at the same rate? Why? It makes no logical sense. The only good thing about it was that it was trivial to remove.
That's one of the great things about 2e, it was very modular. It was built specifically to have a bare-bones of required stuff, and then everything else was optional and could be swapped out at will with very little trouble. Try doing that with 3e. Don't like proficiencies? Zip! Gone. Let's see you get rid of 3e skills.
So true, 2nd edition was far superior due to its modularity (among other things). The game played very fast (especially combat) and could be easily tailored to each play groups desires (and was designed to be tailored by every group).
The demi-human level limits are no less arbitrary than the powers they received. I still don't see anyone here advocating to remove the benefits demi-humans get in exchange for the level limits (besides me that is). I once ran a campaign where all humans got to add 3 points to ability scores as they saw fit, it's amazing that I ended up with an all human party. Level limits were in place as a way to reflect demi-humans lack of ambition towards adventuring (something no player would ever role-play). |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 09 Sep 2009 : 17:47:00
The exceptional ability scores were part of the exceeding racial limits rules, where you had to have exceptional scores in your prime requisits to even be allowed to advance beyond whatever level was set.
It was just a stupid and arbitrary system. Quadruple XP to advance? When just before they were advancing at the same rate? Why? It makes no logical sense. The only good thing about it was that it was trivial to remove.
That's one of the great things about 2e, it was very modular. It was built specifically to have a bare-bones of required stuff, and then everything else was optional and could be swapped out at will with very little trouble. Try doing that with 3e. Don't like proficiencies? Zip! Gone. Let's see you get rid of 3e skills. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Sep 2009 : 17:12:12
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
Humans got classes others didn't (paladin, most notably), and also got to dual class, which can easily be better than multi-classing. But a lot of the advantage of humans wasn't mechanical, it was role-playing. They're the dominant species in all the published worlds, with all the advantages that goes with that position. Try being an elf in Luskan or Hillsfar.
I'm not, completely, opposed to the idea of strengthening the race a little, a la 3e, but not at the cost of something as draconian as level caps. Mid to high level can be some of the most fun to play, but if you happen to be playing a demihuman (a choice that can often be made RW years in the past), all of a sudden you're stopped dead with no reason. Sure, your dwarf fighter has been battling orcs for years, and yes he's been getting better as he goes, but all of a sudden, whoops! No matter how much longer he lives or how many more orcs and giants and fiends he kills, he'll never get any better at fighting.
It makes no logical sense. It's a rule just for being a rule, and a poor attempt to explain why elves or dwarves don't dominate the world, instead of doing actual world-building and explaining it through history, the way FR has.
Besides, we're all of us already humans. Why would we want to play humans in make-believe?
Well, there were rules for circumventing the level caps... I don't have a page number, because this is from the Core Rules CD. But in the 2E DMG, it said:
quote:
If you decide to allow demihumans unlimited advancement, consider this option: To
counteract the demihumans' long life, slow down their advancement. Require
demihumans to earn two, three, or even four times as many experience points as a human
to advance a level.
This allows the short-lived humans to advance more quickly than their long-lived
comrades, who will eventually catch up after the humans' demise. If this solution, though
logical, is unacceptable to your players, a compromise may be called for.
The best compromise is to allow demihumans normal (or double-cost) advancement to
their "maximum" levels. Then require them to earn triple or quadruple experience points
to advance beyond that point. They will advance very slowly, but the players will still
have a goal and the sense of accomplishment that comes with rising a level.
There was another rule for demihumans with exceptional scores to have a higher level limit.
Most of the level limits were level 12, anyway, which was getting up there in a system that was only set up to get you to level 20. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 09 Sep 2009 : 17:08:55
I generally agree with Apex here. The level limits and class restrictions are both a DM tool and a guidance to the general "feel" of the game and the settings. If a group disagrees with them they are the easiest changed rules in the entire game, just remove the caps if you don't like them. Do you really want a dwarven wizard and a halfling paladin? Great, now its done.
I am curious, outside of convention styled situations, how many people has had a DM say to them "sorry, but from now on you are stuck. No more levels?"
As for the bard thing; in my opinion the bard shouldn't access any direct damage spells, such as Magic missile and Fireball, but that is just my personal taste. The game puts no restrictions on the spell-use of the bard. |
| Hoondatha |
Posted - 09 Sep 2009 : 16:44:20
Humans got classes others didn't (paladin, most notably), and also got to dual class, which can easily be better than multi-classing. But a lot of the advantage of humans wasn't mechanical, it was role-playing. They're the dominant species in all the published worlds, with all the advantages that goes with that position. Try being an elf in Luskan or Hillsfar.
I'm not, completely, opposed to the idea of strengthening the race a little, a la 3e, but not at the cost of something as draconian as level caps. Mid to high level can be some of the most fun to play, but if you happen to be playing a demihuman (a choice that can often be made RW years in the past), all of a sudden you're stopped dead with no reason. Sure, your dwarf fighter has been battling orcs for years, and yes he's been getting better as he goes, but all of a sudden, whoops! No matter how much longer he lives or how many more orcs and giants and fiends he kills, he'll never get any better at fighting.
It makes no logical sense. It's a rule just for being a rule, and a poor attempt to explain why elves or dwarves don't dominate the world, instead of doing actual world-building and explaining it through history, the way FR has.
Besides, we're all of us already humans. Why would we want to play humans in make-believe? |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 09 Sep 2009 : 16:30:27
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
I must say that I agree with this Bermudan individual. But I never played a 2E Campaign long enough to experience the level cap.
My opinion is that they are about the only (with class restrictions) drawbacks to all the bonuses that demi-humans get and even then, like you stated they hardly ever come up. If you want to do away with level limits, then you should also do away with the benefits of the demi-humans (ability bonuses, infravision, secret door detection, bonuses to hit with weapons/races, penalties to hit for size (dwarves, halflings, gnomes), etc). It seems like many people want to have their cake and eat it too. With zero bonuses, but no level/class limits, how many people would seriously play a demi-human?
Which is why 3E got it better by giving Humans the bonus Feat and Skill points to make up for the lack of special vision and other abilities. Much better that way IMO |
| Apex |
Posted - 09 Sep 2009 : 16:16:07
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
I must say that I agree with this Bermudan individual. But I never played a 2E Campaign long enough to experience the level cap.
My opinion is that they are about the only (with class restrictions) drawbacks to all the bonuses that demi-humans get and even then, like you stated they hardly ever come up. If you want to do away with level limits, then you should also do away with the benefits of the demi-humans (ability bonuses, infravision, secret door detection, bonuses to hit with weapons/races, penalties to hit for size (dwarves, halflings, gnomes), etc). It seems like many people want to have their cake and eat it too. With zero bonuses, but no level/class limits, how many people would seriously play a demi-human? |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 09 Sep 2009 : 12:02:57
quote:
Originally posted by SeeDiGi
Hated level caps. Hate hate hate.
I must say that I agree with this Bermudan individual. But I never played a 2E Campaign long enough to experience the level cap. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 Sep 2009 : 03:39:53
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
That's reasonable, so what happens after six months or more?, what's stopping Szass on ''going Stalin'' on them. What if Tam orders a full-scale mobilization against Rashemen, they'd all try to sabotage the invasion to undermine his power? back to Zulkir-dom?
They wouldn't all try to undermine his power, but they wouldn't all be in full support, either. After he'd consolidated his power, the majority would go along with such an invasion, if ordered. But not fully -- they're still driven by intrigue and a desire for power, so they'd all keep some troops held back, and of those sent, some would have additional orders -- like "let this guy overextend his forces and get cut down" or "make sure this other guy falls in 'battle'".
And in this theoretical invasion, Szass himself would have to keep some troops at home, to make sure no one got adventuresome while it was going on. Actually, such an invasion would be a good way for Szass to try to get rid of opponents -- but of course they'd know that.
A Thay united under Szass Tam would be more united than it is, and would tend to be more sinister than it already is... But there's still going to be a lot of intrigue and factionalism from purely internal forces, and Szass taking over would be of great interest to just about everyone else -- which means that everyone in the Realms is going to be doing their best to stir up that particular pot. More aggressive, more undead, more Machiavellian fun and games. Externally, Thay would appear stronger and more sinister, but the reality would be that it would in some ways be more divided than before.
To take total, unopposed control, Szass would pretty much have to dominate or replace every zulkir and prominent wizard. But once his machinations were revealed, he'd be less able to do that. The key to the entire scenario I've posited is that his actions are prematurely revealed, and that's what keeps him from being able to be a dictator. |
| Quale |
Posted - 08 Sep 2009 : 22:46:39
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Ah, but he'd have no control over the sizable faction that gets out of dodge as soon as it becomes apparent what he's doing. Once they're out, they're mostly in the clear.
And it's not a case where everyone wakes up one day and he's suddenly in total control. He's only got maybe 3 of the other zulkirs under his control when someone realizes what he's doing and blows it open. So there's a gap between the revealing of his plans, and him actually being able to consolidate his control. Obviously he'd advance his timetable as soon as people realized what he's doing, but he'd still have to work at taking control of everything. I think it would take two or three months at minimum, more likely six. Maybe even longer, if some holdouts can go to ground in a good location, instead of fleeing.
So you have him working behind the scenes, but then it's revealed. Now there's some chaos in Thay as some Thayans hightail it out of there, some work to seize control of things because Szass told them to, some work to seize control of things because they want to curry favor (with either side!), some work to seize control of things just to hold their own, and some work to seize control of things to act in opposition to Szass. This goes on for a few months, at least.
Because even with Szass Tam openly ruling, Thayans remain Thayans. A lot of them are only going to be looking out for number one. So even with Szass in charge, there's still going to be a lot of Red Wizzies still working against each other. Thay under Szass Tam will not be a unified body of wizards, though there is a bit more unity than there was before. He's top dog, but he's still herding cats. 
That's reasonable, so what happens after six months or more?, what's stopping Szass on ''going Stalin'' on them. What if Tam orders a full-scale mobilization against Rashemen, they'd all try to sabotage the invasion to undermine his power? back to Zulkir-dom?
|
| SeeDiGi |
Posted - 08 Sep 2009 : 17:11:19
Hated level caps. Hate hate hate. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 08 Sep 2009 : 16:09:03
I wrote the Players Handbook for friend who made a CBT online MMO. It's not like EQ or WOW as it is more strategic and tactic (still play on hex maps, etc...). Anyways- its a fun game that stays true to the game. Politics still run everything. He has even gone as far as to code which factions (Clans/Inner Sphere) have access to which technology. Its very cool. http://www.invasion3042.com
Anyways, hijack over! |
| The Sage |
Posted - 08 Sep 2009 : 00:31:11
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
As for BattleTech, it's giant stompy robots driven by people -- they can't act on their own. All the books have a lot of battle, but I most enjoy the ones where the politics that leads to the fighting is prominent.
Amen! Man, now I feel the urge to go read some BT books. The politics are what made it great. The battles were made better because of it.
You'll find a significant number of the novels available for second-hand purchase through nobleknight.com. Also, you might be interested in a subscription with battlecorps.com, which offers fiction for BT [featuring tales set in different periods in its history] from some of the best authors ever to write from the setting. Well worth the small fee, I can assure you.
|
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 07 Sep 2009 : 20:10:37
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
You seriously have to be kidding about the racial restrictions and bonuses being fair, elves for instance get +1 to dex trade off -1 to con, but also get +1 to hit with swords and bows, infravision, a bonus to find secret doors, an immunity to paralyze, sleep, and charm spells, plus an incredible lifespan (very useful when casting haste). In exchange for all that they have class and level limitations. If you want to do away with those then to balance it out one should also do away with all the other elven bonuses, thus you would have a short, slim, pointy eared demi-human with no bonuses, it would be pure role-playing. Level and class limits balance out the huge bonuses demi-humans get and are in fact easily explained by the characteristics of the races (elves are pretty unlikely to adventure for long careers due to their long life-span, would you really go out adventuring if you knew you could naturally live for 1000 years?)
First, nowhere in the 2nd ed Player's Handbook does it say a bard cannot cast any spell, it is simply a flavor issue in most campaigns (I have had bards with fireball). That must have been some dumb Neverwinter rule.
Oops! I should've qualified my answer!
In my campaigns, elves don't get the bonuses to swords and bows (gotta develop your skills, juss like the rest of us!), don't get the immunity to paralyze effects, sleep effects (I RP that they do indeed need normal sleep, juss like humans), and only get bonuses vs. charm spells if of a sufficient enough wisdom score/favourable circumstance situation.
I also felt that in addition to elves having crazy bonuses, humans still get the short end by not being able to multi-class.
I actually roleplay a horrifically adventurous elf party, so I'm not at all the right guy to talk to about elves living a peaceful life in the forest dude!
In 2e, bards can cast magic missile, but not in 3e.
(And I hope you know I was deliberately being overdramatic w/my dislike of bards not being able to cast MM in 3E rules---not at all trying to set the tone for non-peacable discussion. I know how things can get lost in translation on the internet)
Ayunken-vanzan, in 3E, bards cast arcane magical spells in much of the same vein as sorcerers. And given their talent for lore, memorization, and movement, I feel its strongly arguable that bards should be able to cast arcane spells as wizards do in 3E (w/the correct amount of intelligence, of course), as in my mind, they seem to qualify for all the things neccessary to be able to cast spells as wizards.
And in order to balance that, IIRC, when bards were first introduced to Dungeons and Dragons, there were specific qualifications to become a bard. Like its not like everyone could become a bard (at least not a good one), like how many strong people could become fighters. Like not everyone can be a Jimi Hendrix, type of thng.
To each his own, of course. It was juss a bigtime dissapointment for me, as its my favourite 1st level spell of all-time. |
| Ayunken-vanzan |
Posted - 07 Sep 2009 : 19:13:13
quote:
Apex wrote:
First, nowhere in the 2nd ed Player's Handbook does it say a bard cannot cast any spell, it is simply a flavor issue in most campaigns (I have had bards with fireball). That must have been some dumb Neverwinter rule.
Magic missile (this is spell bladeinAmn spoke of) is a wizard/sorcerer spell, so a bard cannot cast it under normal circumstances. So it is only natural that in NWN a bard is not able to cast it, the game following the 3.0 rules closely. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 07 Sep 2009 : 19:11:10
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
As for BattleTech, it's giant stompy robots driven by people -- they can't act on their own. All the books have a lot of battle, but I most enjoy the ones where the politics that leads to the fighting is prominent.
Amen! Man, now I feel the urge to go read some BT books. The politics are what made it great. The battles were made better because of it.
As for racial restrictions- I don't think they were ever implemented fairly. Some races got the short end by far. Also, be careful when invoking the rules found in software versus canon/flavor. Some of the programmers made things work certain ways regardless of how it should have probably been implemented. |
| Apex |
Posted - 07 Sep 2009 : 19:02:32
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
I do think the racial restrictions and bonuses were fair though (ie-Orcs get major STR and CON bonuses, elves get a CON disadvantage, etc), and think that is where the race balancing should have ended.
All people who know arcane magic SHOULD be able to cast magic missile, and no one can ever successfully argue otherwise to me, buddy!  I bought Neverwinter Nights Platinum (for the ridiculously awsome price of $15.00, used!), and was so excited........
....only to find that my bard can't cast Magic Missile! If you only knew my pain, Apex!
You seriously have to be kidding about the racial restrictions and bonuses being fair, elves for instance get +1 to dex trade off -1 to con, but also get +1 to hit with swords and bows, infravision, a bonus to find secret doors, an immunity to paralyze, sleep, and charm spells, plus an incredible lifespan (very useful when casting haste). In exchange for all that they have class and level limitations. If you want to do away with those then to balance it out one should also do away with all the other elven bonuses, thus you would have a short, slim, pointy eared demi-human with no bonuses, it would be pure role-playing. Level and class limits balance out the huge bonuses demi-humans get and are in fact easily explained by the characteristics of the races (elves are pretty unlikely to adventure for long careers due to their long life-span, would you really go out adventuring if you knew you could naturally live for 1000 years?)
First, nowhere in the 2nd ed Player's Handbook does it say a bard cannot cast any spell, it is simply a flavor issue in most campaigns (I have had bards with fireball). That must have been some dumb Neverwinter rule.
|
| Zanan |
Posted - 07 Sep 2009 : 10:49:54
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I also liked the limitations on what classes races could be. Level caps, though, was a completely different matter; they're the first thing I house-rule out. About the only thing I use them for is a general guideline as to how common a certain class is within the race. For instance, if the max level for wizard is 4, I take that to mean that wizards of that race can generally rise to whatever level they want, but that wizards as a whole are very rare. One of the things I disliked about 3e was its obsession with allowing everyone to be everything, ignoring that there are sometimes good reasons why some people don't become certain things.
Well, not really. In "my field of interest", they actually chopped and changed "at will", making Lolthite divine casters (i.e. clerics, rangers, druids, blackguards) female only (and thus e.g. eradicating a whole crusader order out of the lore), who were "mixed" before. While, on the other hand, not limiting the Eilistraeens to females (as before).
Obviously, 4E has done away with even more boundaries and I still see the sour looks on the faces of the Eberron folk once they heard that each and every race can now wear the coveted dragonmarks.
Class limits and level caps. Making those "rare" in the various classes would have done the trick. There's always the conundrum about long-lived races and levels. During a usual campaign (1 to 3 years in-setting), people could rise through 10 levels with ease, if not more. Now tell those players that their elven chap with 350 odd years to look forward to to sit back and do nothing. But that'S a problem ever since D&D came into existence. Why would a youngish (say 50 years) old elf start with the same experience / class as a 17 -year-old human? What did he do all day? |
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 07 Sep 2009 : 09:17:36
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
Many of us liked the rules that forbid demi-humans from becoming any class or that put level limits on them, remember AD&D was designed to be humanocentric. Also, keep in mind that there was no rule preventing bards from casting magic missile, just flavor. Bards were supposed to be played as morale boosting charmers and jacks of all trades, not fireball slinging battlemages. A bard was far more effective with phantasmal force or audible glamer as their first level spell than magic missile or sleep anyways. Finally the word you are looking for is plethora not plenthora.
I understand the humanocentric part, especially since humans dominate most political realms of every country and city-state I see in canon.
But I don't understand how for instance, a halfling can worship their deity w/the same fervor as a human, and dedicate their combat talents the same way as a human would, and still not end up being a paladin.
Or how so many races can multi-class, but a human can only dual-class (as far as I'm concerned, humans clearly get the short end of the stick there).
I do think the racial restrictions and bonuses were fair though (ie-Orcs get major STR and CON bonuses, elves get a CON disadvantage, etc), and think that is where the race balancing should have ended.
All people who know arcane magic SHOULD be able to cast magic missile, and no one can ever successfully argue otherwise to me, buddy! I bought Neverwinter Nights Platinum (for the ridiculously awsome price of $15.00, used!), and was so excited........
....only to find that my bard can't cast Magic Missile! If you only knew my pain, Apex!
LOL! Thank you so much for the spelling correction! I speak and type like an absolute idiot at times! It's juss the Danilo Thann in me. I'm actually quite a genius.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoondatha
I also liked the limitations on what classes races could be. Level caps, though, was a completely different matter; they're the first thing I house-rule out. About the only thing I use them for is a general guideline as to how common a certain class is within the race. For instance, if the max level for wizard is 4, I take that to mean that wizards of that race can generally rise to whatever level they want, but that wizards as a whole are very rare. One of the things I disliked about 3e was its obsession with allowing everyone to be everything, ignoring that there are sometimes good reasons why some people don't become certain things.
I agree that the 2e restrictions should have been guidelines, such as to give the culture of each race, but I still feel that it shouldn't have been the be-all-and-end-all for the race and restriction in question.
And then 3e went and it the complete opposite as you said, allowing everyone to be anything, w/an overcomplication of rules to boot.
That being said, I find the most fulfilling campaigns are primarily 2e based, w/a little of the things that 3e has to offer, to compensate for where 2e was lacking.
So while I don't play 3e, I don't completely ignore it, like I do for most of 4e. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Sep 2009 : 08:28:53
That's the one. And a few of the adventure modules for the "Chronicles" offered some options too, as I recall.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Sep 2009 : 07:10:17
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
(I specify core rules, because Krynn tossed most of those restrictions out the window).
That actually depends on which rulebooks you were using. As I recall, some of the older DL sources offered alternative caps for some classes.
I don't have the book any more, but I recalled noting in the old Dragonlance Adventures hardcover (sigh... the one I lost had been signed by Tracy Hickman) that (at least some subraces of) elves and dwarves could be paladins, and that a lot of the races and subraces had level caps replaced with U for unlimited (which was actually specified elsewhere to mean level 19, as I recall, because the gods of Krynn didn't like folks getting past that level). |
|
|
