 |
| |
|
|
Fitz
|
 |
& Anarchist
Mar 2000
time: 21:13
|
|
Anyone purchased the 3rd edition players guide yet. I just got it a couple of days ago, and I'd be interested in your perspective. As a long time player, I both liked and disliked many things.
First, I wish they had expanded on the Player's Option skill&powers and combat&tactics instead of the old second edition rules. The POptions were fantastic.
I was also annoyed by the fact that they brought back the barbarian and monk classes (although PO: Spells&Magic did a beautiful monk). I also didn't like how they reorganized the Paladin, Ranger, & Bard so they weren't subclasses anymore.
However, the new multiclass rules are fantastic! To accomodate them, they made major changes to which skills are directly class related and which are purchasable (similar to the old non-weapon proficiencies). Any character can multiclass with as many other classes as they like. The total levels of all classes adds up to exactly what a single class person would be with the same experience point total (this is a mojor change). That means a character might be a fighter 10 or a fighter 5/wizard 5. Under the old system that multiclass character may have been fighter 7/wizard 7 for exactly the same experience points as a fighter 10.
Notes: Level limits and race base class restrictions have been removed, as have ability requirements for race & class.
Another thing I didn't like is that every character stars with cetain weapon proficiencies depending on their class. You can purchase further profieciency in feapons by using the much coveted feats (essentially suped up skills, but you get less than you do skills), which means that most characters will only be proficient in their class weapons (IMO).
------------------
-Fitz
Non-Founder of Anarchists Ununited.
First Report of Anarchist Ununited Activities
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Alinestra Covelia
|
 |
I sense the dodgy presence of Bing - a presence I've not felt since...
Feb 2000
time: 00:13
|
|
I've been playing AD&D since 2nd Ed. (I couldn't join in on the 1st Edition fun, owing to a slight case of non-birth at the time.)
While I played it, it was fantastic, but looking back I think the system was pretty clunky. A few things I now look upon as being bad include:
Hit Points system -- this is fine from the point of view of a load of characters who ABSOLUTELY MUST survive through a series of adventures, but if you're aiming for a more immediate sense of realism, hit points should never increase noticeably from the starting value. Perhaps with some endurance training, they could rise, but through the course of a person's life, mid-twenties are the halcyon days. From there on, hit points and health only deteriorate.
Armor Class -- wearing armor doesn't make you more difficult to hit; it merely absorbs damage for you. In many cases, wearing armor makes you much *easier* to hit. You just don't get hurt so badly when you're clobbered. David "Zeb" Cook worked on Fallout 2 for PC, and there the system was a bit more logical - "armor class" was how easy you were to hit, and "armor strength" (or something like that) was much more important, being how much damage the armor absorbed. Finally, they included an extra "armor soak" which then took a certain percentage of damage off, allowing for impact spread, etc.
Experience levels -- these are a bit of a dinosaur, in my opinion. Gone are the days when characters should be said to be "two levels higher" or "of a lower level". They should do as Call of Cthulhu did and allow players to get better at their own pace, in their own chosen skills, and their own customized ways. That way, two people may meet and think "well, he's tougher, but I'm faster, maybe in a fight he'd beat me using his fists, but I'd put a bullet through him before he's even cleared the holster" or something.
As opposed to
PC: Galdrik steps up and offers a challenge: 'I am a level fourteen priest of Rinkscrot!' he shouts.
DM: Okay, you're opponent is a level nineteen druid of Pikachu.
PC: Oh, hell. No. Actually, Galdrik steps up and says 'How do you do? very nice to meet you? Would you like me to clean your shoes sir?'
etc.
...
There are more but I've spouted off enough for now. And, living in England UK, I haven't even looked at 3rd Ed yet 
------------------
Machines: outthinkable YES outfightable NO.
Men: outfightable YES outthinkable NO.
Allie Cove: outfallable INEVITABLY
Homepage http://www.enixine.dabsol.co.uk (Shared)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
Hm... some of my "AD&D"s got changed to "AD" in my previous posting. Bummer. Must be Moz.
The last time I played AD&D it was also a heavily modified system. It was far better than the original; still, the inherit restrictions were still very big. These include:
1. A level-based as opposed to a skills-based system. This leads to all sorts of absurdities, including monsters draining your levels (yeah right).
2. Classes with all the associated restrictions. I don't see why a magic-user can't use a sword, if she really wants. Give her a penalty in gaining that particular skill, perhaps, but forbidding it is just silly. This also leads to a proliferation of new character classes, some of which are totally unbalancing.
3. Using spells erases them from memory. Most modified systems get rid of this and replace it with a mana-based system.
4. Armour Class. As Alinestra Covelia pointed out wearing more armour should make you easier to be hit. What it does is absorb damage. In Fantasy Heroes and most other RPGs armour absorbs damage. In Role Master armour also reduces critials.
5. The Cleric class is actually based on Christian priests instead of priests of a polytheistic belief. For example, the Greek goddess Athena uses a spear, so it would be really strange that her priests can't use spears.
6. The Monk class is so totally wimpy. Why would monks have 4-sided dices for hit points when they were warrior priests and priests had 6-siders for hit points? Many years ago an improved version of the Monk character class appeared in Dragon magazine and is generally referred to as the Dragon Monk. I am not sure if this is the one in the 2nd ed. PH but it is much better than the original.
7. Why should Rangers have less hit points than Fighters? After all, they wander about difficult terrains and should be as tough as Barbarians.
8. Why should Paladins be always Lawful Good when there are evil gods running around?
Some years back several of us were talking about AD&D. We were wondering why magic users would create any items that they can't use. Istead of a "vorpal blade" (sp?) a mage would create a "vorpal dagger" instead. This issue would of course resolve itself if mages could use swords.
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited August 20, 2000).]
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-08-2000 04:42
|