Uh, yeah, stat values are rolled 4d6 in 3rd Ed. Iirc, 2nd Ed did the exact same thing. Stat buy is a DMG variant. Its not 1st Ed 3d6 in order, but its perfectly variable.
Wtf? 17 int is higher than standard int at lvl 5 for even a wizard. 'Normal' exceptional stats fof a wizard take a 15 int at lvl 1, and boost it at 4 level intervals. Buying a tome is VERY expensive in 3rd, though enhancement bonus' are affordable by mid-level. NWN isn't really a good example.
17 is higher than what 3rd ed playtesting used for their wizard. Heck, I can readily think of 1 PC race with an intelligence bonus, the Sun Elf. There are some with LA, but thats different.
3.5 allows you to do almost anything with a PC, but it does still have pre-reqs for feats and prestige classes, and one hard to qualify for feat is definately Knockdown. Requiring Imp Trip usually means getting Expertise, but you can get that from some classes, if you really like using the feat. You sure as heck don't need to start at 18 str in a point buy system, and if the point buy in NWN is like the variant in the DMG, 18 costs 16 points, which is iirc half your total. Or even above half. 16 is wwwaaayyy cheaper in the DMG, 10 points vs 16. Imho, I rather like point buy, but mostly for characters written out as a 'build' idea. I would WAY rather have 14 or even 16 dex on a Fighter, and unless Heavy Plate or Stone Armour is available, I'd hate to go lower than 12, 13 is a sweet spot though for many nice feats. Imho, despite less armour choices, a Barbarian might go lighter on dex, since he has way less feats to choose; a low dex fighter will run out of good feats pretty fast.
That said, in IWD2 they did a 1 for 1 point buy, but the game is a fairly hard campaign, with none of the x3 crits from early archers 'fudged' to a roll of 19. That game is NOT a good no reload game! Especially early.
So I was going to make a post arguing more about stats between 2e and later editions since I love the sort of arguments but realized we'd probably be de-railing the thread. Should be start a new thread to discuss this?
@DreadKhan - The only exposure to 3E or later that I've had has been CRPG like NWN, NWN2, IWD2, ToEE. In those games, Point buy system is the standard. Therefore i assumed that it was standard in PnP play. I also (apparently miss-) read your post to infer that the point buy system was what you were defending. If I was wrong in that, that's my mistake.
Speaking exclusively of the point buy system, a 5th level wizard with less than 17 INT is a rare thing indeed in my experience, at least as far as I can see. Why would you intentionally not put points up to 18 at level 1 for your primary stat? Which is more or less my entire thing.
In random die roll stat systems (I speak of 2E because that is what I know), you made use of what you got. If your highest stat was INT and it was 15, THAT was your wizard. And you could progress almost all the way to Arch-Wizard with that stat (I think you had to have 17 INT in order to cast 9th? Which makes no difference if I am wrong).
If 3E offered and played that way, I was unaware (and I suspect that I am not alone in that). The POINT BUY system is where I have an issue, and it is the one that is the most prevalent in CRPG type games.
Beyond if it was random die role or point buy, I had other issues with 3E. The fact that you could increase your STATS 5 times is another issue that I have. That made very little sense to me coming from a system where you couldn't do it. And it further (in my subjective view) allowed you to Min/Max your stats.
And finally, the fact that normal humans could have STATS above 18 (100 for fighters) was the third piece that I disliked. In 2E, if you had a 19 STR it was because you were an Ogre or other magically enhanced being. If you had a 25 STR, you were a Storm Giant. In 3E, it is not only possible to have a 30+ STR, (in the Point buy world) it was a regular thing. Why is it reasonable that some 30th level dude can have a STR rating THAT excessively higher than a 1st level?
So beyond the random nature of 3E STAT rolls, the Stat boost and the Stat cap removal (or at least movement beyond reason) are two other reasons why I PERSONALLY don't like 3E STATS. This is a personal and subjective opinion. I am NOT saying the system is bad or wrong, merely that I don't like it as much as 2E.
Regarding 18s at level 1 in proper point buy alternative in 3rd ed, it costs 16 points to get an 18, and you get either 32, which is recommended for 'harder' campaigns, but I think 28 is the standard. I am mostly of the opinion that people should consider a non-roll based system, unless everyone is experienced. Random is great if everyone has experience enough to work with a rolled up rogue with a few 14s as his high stats. Mind you, 3rd is pretty forgiving of crummy rolls, but there are limits. 14 dex is crap in 2nd ed, but gives +2 AC in 3rd.
Now, if you think about it, everyone is fairly vulnerable at low levels in 3rd ed, due to the way crits work. Many weapons have either a x3 modifier (meaning an arrow can 1 shot a mage with 18 cons at level one, putting him at full -10, and thats without even the easily available Point Blank Shot), or crit twice as often. 19s are rarely a miss!
So, for a Fighter now, you have 10 HP, and still, an orc with a great axe can quite possibly one shot you too. This is a bit ugly, especially since you are often going to be outnumbered!
Anyways, by 3rd level, a character that took decent dex and cons is not likely to get killed too suddenly, meaning you can down a potion/use magic, but an 18 in one stat leaves not much to work with in other stats. 2 more points isn't strictly irrelevant, but you're paying 6 points for that; you can set another stat to 14 for that! Now, if you think aboutmit, in 3rd ed, there are very good reasons for every single character to want a good dex, wis, and cons score, many use skills and thus can't dump int, and some even use charisma, especially Paladins (sorcerers do too, but they aren't in melee). If a warrior dumps wis, he will be very vulnerable to spells. Anyone that dumps dex or cons is vulnerable to spells, poison, and normal attacks.
A sorcerer imho might consider maxing Cha, and a warrior using two-handed weapons might want to start with 18 str, but you will be relying on luck to survive for awhile. This is why some arcanes actually take Toughness at lvl 1, a normally crummy feat indeed.
18 str in 3rd ed is substantially weaker if you check, compared to 18/00. There are conversion charts even, fwiw. Iirc, 18 in 3rd is on par with 18 in 2nd ed for actual lifting/carrying.
Now, regarding the 'high stats' issue, for a human at 20th lvl, you can manage 18+5+5+6 under normal rules, thats your level ups, a +5 tome (or you could use many, many wishes), and a +6 enhancement item. There aren't many other possible bonuses, and according to the rules, its going yo be hard to get the tome. Thats a total of 34 btw, which is about Storm Giant. A titan has 37 strength, the Terrasque has 45 (!), for example. So, in 3rd, its almost imposdible to approach the physical strength of a strong god, who could be stronger than the Terrasque. In 2nd, you could arm wrestle a God. Thats silly imho, but now we're arguing opinion.
Guess I'll throw my opinion in since we are continuing this
2ed feels very un-intuitive and doesn't make sense to me RP-wise which is why I prefer 3.5/Pathfinder/5e's way of handling statistics. I felt like it was useful for making more realistic characters with flaws and advantages.
Example being my Piro character (Didn't use point buy for this. This is just what I think her stats would be like).
Piro Gnome Sorcerer 8 str 12 dex 10 con 16 int 8 wis 16 cha
in 3.5 edition+ this makes her physically weak, a little quick with good aim, very smart with lots of skill points, bad will saves and perception, but then high speaking skills and natural charm (+Better sorcerer spell DCs and stuff). In 2e (At least BG/IWD) this nets Piro almost nothing except for a small bonus to lore (and minus to lore from wis) and shop prices. I would like to know what the attributes affect fully in PnP since the only 2e material I own is the Complete Book of Necromancers.
I've played 3.5/Pathfinder/5e with both point buy and with fully rolling statistics. I find the latter is more fun for one-time sessions but the former is more fun if you're seeking to create a character to last for a long time. I usually come up with an RP idea with a backstory and then choose my statistics to reflect that as opposed to the other way around.
On the subject of gaining stat points I find it more natural that if your big strong man keeps swinging his greataxe around he eventually gets stronger. If a thief practices dodging every day you get better at dodging.
An RP idea that would seem impossible for 2e is a low wisdom monk who over the course of his journey gains the wisdom he lacks and returns at the end of his adventure to his home/temple/whatever as a more wise man. Kitze Tribal (my monk) in my IWD:EE party has 14 wisdom and through his adventures he'll never become more wise despite discovering new things and gaining more worldly experience.
Edit: Going to use Pathfinder 20 point buy to create Val'myr.
Val'myr's early life martial training puts his strength at 12, natural elfy-ness puts dex at 12, he can't take a hit for his life so 9 con, he's studied all his life so 14 int, his preistly training under Shyka (Fey Death Deity) puts his wisdom at 15, and then he's super charming so 16 charisma.
Yes I could bump his wisdom to 18 but Val doesn't have 18 wisdom starting as a character. That's something he learns as he continues to learn more about the world and the gods.
Edit the second: I'd enjoy the rolling systems that IWD and BG use more had it been like Pool of Radiance where you can't re-allocate stat points from one to another. I felt the way that PoR used the rolling system was great!
Speaking of miniatures and playing with real gaming supplies, lately I've gotten really into fantasy card games. I've been playing Hearthstone, MMDOC, and Summoner's Legion, a lot. I tried Infinity Wars but couldn't get into it. I'd love to try Star Wars, but it's only on mobile platforms.
The reason I bring it up here is that my interest in it online has gotten me interested in trying it in real life with friends. I guess it would be Magic: The Gathering that I think I would enjoy. The trouble is that we don't have any gaming shops in my area that sponsor it. We used to have one, but it closed. There are some private groups around that can be contacted online, but I'm not too comfortable with that, so I guess I won't get to try it any time soon.
Have any of you tabletop players ever tried any of the card games?
@LadyRhian , thank you kindly for the invite, but I don't think I could be around enough to be a good member of the forum roleplaying group.
Magic TG was marketed as though it were D&D played with cards and I initially dismissed it out of hand as "for casuals". I got into it a few years after the release (wishing I had bought into it early), when I realized that it was simply a fantasy themed strategy game.
Netrunner card game was a lot of fun as well... which was a cyber-punk theme strategy game.
My .02$ is the TCGs are fun but can get terribly expensive and you'll run into a lot of total douchebag players. If you can find a cool play group it's fun. My last regular play group did D&D one week and Magic the other, alternating.
I've heard good things about L5R card game... like it's fun and relatively cheap to play, but the less popular (cheap) ones you'll be hard pressed to find players and if you do begin collecting the future value of your collection won't be so hot compared to squirreling away some of the more desirable ones.
@hispls , I guess I'll just stick to the ftp computer card games. Spending real money on those is optional, and if I do decide to spend a little, I get pretty good return (in card booster packs) for what little I pay.
Spending too much real money if I were to get into the tabletop collectible card games would be a concern for me, indeed.
@DreadKhan - I am not going to try and dispute any of your assumptions in your post. If you played Neverwinter Nights 2 on any persistent world, or visited any of the character building sites like nwn2db, you will find that THERE, the name of the game in the point buy system is min/max. Maybe that just speaks to the types of players that I hang out with.
With regards to the "High stats" thing, again I use the example of Wulfgar who "from birth" is supposed to have been the strongest (human) man around (there were in fact half ogres that were stronger than he in the series). I read that to mean that at level 1, he had an 18/00 STR or the equivalent thereof. In short, he is the strongest human and no levels of advancement will increase him beyond that point, nor allow another player to overtake him. Short of magical enhancement, that's it. This is not replicatable in 3E system, period at least as far as I can see.
What 3rd E attempted to do was blend in skill into stats and blur the lines. In straight up combat, it makes sense that as you advance in martial combat that you make better effective use of your strength "In combat". However, that won't make lifting a tree or winning an arm wrestling match any easier. This was an unforeseen side effect of the path that they chose. I get WHY they did it (and do not wish to debate that point either). I just don't personally like THAT they did it. And it makes less sense "To me personally".
However, I feel no compulsion to justify my personal beliefs on the topic any further, nor was it ever my intent to convince others of the 'Rightness' of my position. I like the STAT system in 2E "MUCH" better than 3E. I stand by that and that's all I've got to say on the topic.
Don't need to spend too much to play casual MtG, since you can choose from tons of cards, and if you can find a shop in your area, they almost certainly have several binders full of cards, and a huge bin of common cards, usually for 10 cents. You can also buy cards online, but not every seller is perfect, even if I never had any problems.
If I were you, I'd get a starter deck, a few booster packs (consider buying the boosters first, incase it influences your later choices), and play a few games. After you get a feel for how the game can play out, spend a few dollars (really, a few, not 50!) to get a few cards to make your strategy better. I wouldn't buy anything that costs more than $3 until you've played a good it, and know what you are looking for.
If you want a cheap, easy to find and hard to screw up deck, a Black deck using monsters with Shadow is hard to deal with. Black has lots of cheap cards that offer big power boosts, especially Spinal Graft. VERY evil card! Unholy Strength is great too.
NWN is not PnP, and is going to be played VERY differently. You can use characters with very low survivability, just like in BG. Loading, restarting, etc are very easy in CRPGs generally, and very unpleasant if you are just PnP. If heremis no actual cost to dying, people play reckless, ie starting with a mage with low cons and dex.
In older DnD editions, PCs got a strength bonus when they reached middle age. Having a teenager capable of rolling the human maximum for strength is a bit stupid. Especially for males, as long as you aren't overly sedentary you will be physically stronger at 30 than you were at 18. If you actually train, you can improve your strength into your 50s, though unless you train for flexibility, you likely are slower and way less flexible.
So, knowing this, why would it be a good thing to allow a character to start at the human maximum, and to either way have few options to improve. 3rd Ed offers a huge buff in realism by allowing stats to improve slightly.
Anyways, in 2nd ed there are ways to boost str, most similar to 3rd ed. Yeah, you can't 'roll' 23 strength in 3rd ed (human non-magical maximum), but why should it be possible to?
What the heck is this bit about blending skills and stats in 3rd? Can you elaborate? As I understand your complaint, the 3rd ed skill system places MUCH higher value on skill ranks vs stats, so I am not sure where you are going wih this. Again, this is realistic. If you have no training/practice jumping, you will not be jumping as far.
In combat, you can get a pretty huge benefit in 3rd ed from physical strength, especially with a two-handed weapon. At 18 btw, its no coincidence imho that you do +6 damage with a two handed weapon, ie the same extra damage 18/00 offered. You also get +4 to hit, but ACs are higher in 3rd.
In both systems, warriors get a full attack bonus progression on a d20, meaning 'skill' makes a bigger difference than strength usually in both.
Anyways, feel free to drop the topic. We might just have to disagree.
I am with @the_spyder in that I like 2e's rolled stats rather than 3e. They were a lot better than 1e also, or original D&D. If you think 2e was bad, you should try 1e, which was limited by race *and* sex. Female Humans were limited to 18/50 (STR), Female Half-orcs to 18/75 and so on. There were also stat minimums, like if you had a CHA of 5 or lower, you could *only* be an assassin. It's right there in the books…
I felt that 3e was made to appeal to those who were into WOW and similar games with the feats. What really peeved me about 3e (and 3.5e) was TOO MANY CLASSES. And too many books, also. I have something like 55 books for 3e, all hardback, and a bunch of softcover books as well. (I bought most of them when 4e was on the verge of coming out and I could get them for cheaper) Whereas, not counting the softcover class/race books for 2e, I have like 10 hardcover books for 2e. I definitely ran into "Book overload" when it came to 3e. And all those different classes they introduced… EEK. That's a lot to keep track of, if you're a GM. With 2e, you have about 9 (10 if you include the monk). A Much more manageable number.
@DreadKhan - Yes, I think we are merely going to have to agree to disagree. In my view +1 per 4 levels over the life of an adventurer's career is in no way similar to any "Age adjusting" rule (and I am not aware of any DM that I played with who used such a rule).
Again, not saying 3E STAT rules are "Bad" (objectively) merely that I don't like them "As much" (subjectively) as 2E. Nuff said.
@LadyRhian - Yeah, I felt that way as well. And I really did not like the fact that all of the sudden EVERYONE could cast wizard spells. Or that you could play ADD with your class choices. "Hey, I leveled up. Wonder what I will be next."
@LadyRhian 3rd ed uses rolled stats, point buy is a DMG variant. Its as core as PCs with Level Adjustments, ie not allowed under standard rules, but due to player interest, a variant was made available. I am familiar with the original DnD stat system, which managed to combine offensiveness with realism. I loved the 'prestige class' Paladin bit, for high level fighters.
I actually agree that 3rd eventually had way too many classes, and even in core, there were still several that should be prestige classes. I think 2nd ed had too many base classes too though; however, from what I read ages ago, there are 4 classes really, warriors, rogues, arcane casters and divine casters. Everything specific is better looked at as a kit. Ranger, Paladin, Bard, Druid, Sorcerer and Barbarian should all be easily accessible prestige classes instead. My biggest peeve was the ridiculously unnecessary Scout class. Impractical on many adventures, and very unoriginal.
If you ever get a chance, check out the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana variant of Basic Classes... that system uses only 3 classes; warrior, expert (aka skill specialist), and magic user, which can be arcane or divine. Everything is completely free form, so you have lots of options. You are likely to be a bit less powerful, but much more unique. The system allows prestige classes, but you hardly need them.
You can't really claim book overload too easily, as 2nd ed had a ridiculous number of those Handbooks, meaning even without settings it had heaps of variant/optional expansion books, including a plethora of kits that amount to an RP only kit. Which is fine, but just call yourself a fighter and move on!
Erm, 3rd ed came out before WoW I'm pretty sure. I think you could argue Diablo had a bit of influence though, but I haven't much Diablo experience, and what I have had doesn't really support that position. 3rd ed was a system that cannibalized all the other DnD offshoots, since I think DnD changed very little between editions until 3rd, which was a complete reworking. 2nd ed let you 'roleplay' whatever you want, while 3rd has actual rules to support it.
To comisserate, I admit character building was very slow in 3rd ed, and each level up could kill an entire session. Also, it WAS possible to make a character quite weak in 3rd ed even if it rolled good stats, 2nd ed didn't give many choices for you to screw up!
Yeah, I'd go with @LadyRhian on the book topic. The core game of 2e was covered pretty inclusively in less than 10 books. There may have been some really tangential, or regurgitated books that weren't "Necessary" in 2e, but no where near as many as 3e. to play 2e, you 'Had' to have PHB, MM, DMG and maybe Deities and Demigods. MM2, Fiend Folio, Dungeoneer's Survival guide and some of the others were 'nice to have' at best, but even then you could probably have 99% in less than 10-15 books. But then that was when Wizards was really starting to ramp up.
In 3E, they went berzonkers with like 5 different books JUST on prestige classes, several books on Arcane goings on from just about every angle etc... Basically they were trying to maximize their franchise monetary income by vastly increasing the peripherals. I never collected the 3E books, but I'd believe @LadyRhian if she says 55 books. There's nothing like that (that I am aware of) in 2E, even if you throw in Advanced into the mix. But it is simple progression of scale as the industry began to be more mainstream.
3E definitely came out before WoW and quite probably before Diablo 2 as well. I do know, in fact I read several articles on the topic, that 3E was the very first attempt to make the game more accessible to the electronic age. The intent was to make a game that translated well into what was considered an emerging market at the time, that of video gaming. 4E took it further and was ABSOLUTELY focused towards more fully bringing the game into the CRPG market. This was undoubtedly influenced by the monetary successes of games like Everquest and later WoW.
There were a LOT of 3rd Edition books, yes. Some pretty useful (Adventurer's Guide to Faerûn, the first Complete books) but later on, it started to feel as though they were grasping for straws (A whole book on ancient evils in your game, really?). But of course, it IS a business, books don't deteriorate so content gets old quickly and none of them were *required* to play. With the plethora of base classes and prestige classes, there was also a whole lot of overlap, including several occasions where one class simply overshadowed another because it was newer. For example, there is no reason to level a paladin beyond level 8 or a cleric above level...1 if you find a similar base/prestige class that continues spell progression, simply because those classes got no new abilities or mechanics after that level, which made levelling kind of boring. Had they simply said "this is the new paladin, made more interesting" instead of "This is the Holy Knight, who is a paladin, but better", it'd be a liiittle nicer.
Still, having played both, I vastly prefer 3rd Edition over 2nd, if only because to a new player, 2nd edition is byzantine in its seemingly random attribute bonuses, unintuitive attack system and myriad of restrictions. You're a dwarf or a halfling so it's impossible for you to study magic? You're a half elf so you don't understand Evocation? You're a non-human so no Paladinhood for you? Why? I also never got why the stat range of 8-14ish in 2nd edition was almost entirely superfluous, bonus wise. The bonuses given seem arbitrary, scaling so poorly Strength even had to be split up because the damage would have to ramp up ridiculously quick to account for monsters far beyond human abilities. There is no cap on abilities in 3rd, meaning there is far more room for variety in the abilities department. Ancient Dragons would be capped at 24/25 strength in 2nd, giving a +12 to damage. Decent, but just as much as any god can dish out, who should be far above them. More importantly, only twice as much as the level 1 fighter who got a lucky roll, which seems like a small difference between such ridiculous levels of power. With no maximum stat cap for giant monsters, you can make them truly threatening and give them stats not *just* above an adventurer's level, but waaay above.
I like that a character's stats increase over the course of their adventuring as well, it makes sense. Start at level 1 with a new sword in your hand and by the time you've reached level 4, surely you've built up some muscle mass and gained a point in Strength. Or maybe your experiences and adventures have broadened your horizons, giving +1 to wisdom, or maybe the exposure to different cultures and people have made you more outgoing and have given you +1 charisma. It's something nice, but not truly unbalancing either. With a starting score of 18, an exceptional and rare value, over 20 levels you can add +5 to that, changing your modifier to that stat from +4 to +6. The idea that Sir Roderick the level 20 knight, who can slay dragons singlehandedly has not changed physically or mentally at all in the years of adventuring since level 1 just seems weird to me. Even by level 5, a character (both in 2nd and 3rd Ed) can perform superhuman acts and carve a legend for himself. Why restrict that to just attack bonus/thac0, saves and skills/non-weapon proficiencies? That's only what a character can DO, not what he IS.
I'm not saying 3rd is perfect, it has way too many bonusses from way too many sources which can get super complicated. Not to mention figuring out how a grapple works (though I don't know if 2nd Edition did that any better). If you have a powergamer in your group, it's also a relatively easy system to exploit. But it feels far more fair and less abitrary than 2nd Ed, which I really like.
Still, having played both, I vastly prefer 3rd Edition over 2nd, if only because to a new player, 2nd edition is byzantine in its seemingly random attribute bonuses, unintuitive attack system and myriad of restrictions. You're a dwarf or a halfling so it's impossible for you to study magic? You're a half elf so you don't understand Evocation? You're a non-human so no Paladinhood for you? Why?
I can totally respect this point of view. There was a lot about 2E that was limiting and didn't make a whole lot of sense. Well, it made sense to someone otherwise they wouldn't have put it there. And Gygax and company WERE trying to make a world where humans were the most prevalent, so they gimped everyone else. And they were guys and probably quite chauvinistic, so women got gimped. Still, they weren't the BEST ways to do things.
I can respect 3E for some of those types of changes. However, I grew up on 2E (well, actually on Basic and then Advanced actually) so that's gonna be my favorite. Plus my issues listed above (which I won't reiterate here) about the Stat system and the A-D-D (not Advanced Dungeons and Dragon) method of leveling up. But meh, I admit that I might be in the minority here. It's all subjective anyway.
I am with @the_spyder in that I like 2e's rolled stats rather than 3e. They were a lot better than 1e also, or original D&D. If you think 2e was bad, you should try 1e, which was limited by race *and* sex. Female Humans were limited to 18/50 (STR), Female Half-orcs to 18/75 and so on. There were also stat minimums, like if you had a CHA of 5 or lower, you could *only* be an assassin. It's right there in the books…
I felt that 3e was made to appeal to those who were into WOW and similar games with the feats. What really peeved me about 3e (and 3.5e) was TOO MANY CLASSES. And too many books, also. I have something like 55 books for 3e, all hardback, and a bunch of softcover books as well. (I bought most of them when 4e was on the verge of coming out and I could get them for cheaper) Whereas, not counting the softcover class/race books for 2e, I have like 10 hardcover books for 2e. I definitely ran into "Book overload" when it came to 3e. And all those different classes they introduced… EEK. That's a lot to keep track of, if you're a GM. With 2e, you have about 9 (10 if you include the monk). A Much more manageable number.
Wow, I can't believe they got away with that. I'm not exactly a feminist or anything, but if they are going to limit the strength of females they should limit the magical capabilities of males. I mean if they are going to allow real life to stick it's ugly head in our fantasy games, they should at least be truthful about it. Women have always been more spiritual than men.
I can see why they used point buy for games like NWN. When you're playing online, you need to level the field, because there wil be people who reload a gazillion times until their character has 16s in everything, which isn't fair on the hardcore player who accepts the fact that his character has only one 15 as his highest stat. In 3rd edition, ability scores are everything, and having less than a 16 in your primary ability is a serious handicap. I don't like it, but I can see why they used it for an online game.
As for the restrictions...I dunno, I kind of like those too, but I think they could have been expanded upon. For example, I'd have dwarves and sun elves (but not wood elves) able to be paladins, mountain dwarves able to be wizards, etc.
I think my biggest problem with 3rd edition was the totally free mutliclassing (seriously? I can learn what the wizard took 20 years to learn by "looking over his shoulder"? Yeah...I'm going to start looking over the shouder of the doctors in the hospital where I work and I'll be a qualified GP within a month, according to 3e logic!!), and the thousands upon thousands of books containing new feats for people to optimise for maximum efficiency. I also didn't like the fact that there were too many classes (many of which served the same function as another class but had some special unique ability), and too many bloody magic users!! 2nd edition had a nice magic system - I prefer games where magic/sorcery is rare (and preferably considered evil and not understood), but in 3rd edition, just about every man and his dog could do magic in some way.
If you want to sell more books to make more money, make more campaigns! I couldn't find many actual campains from WotC; they did plenty of stand-alone adventures but no actual campaigns, instead preferring to let Paizo handle that side of things.
@Stormvessel bear in mind that this was made in the 1970s, before modern feminism. But I agree, if they're going to limit the strength of females, they need to give males an appropriate limit too.
I think my biggest problem with 3rd edition was the totally free mutliclassing (seriously? I can learn what the wizard took 20 years to learn by "looking over his shoulder"? Yeah...I'm going to start looking over the shouder of the doctors in the hospital where I work and I'll be a qualified GP within a month, according to 3e logic!!)
Honestly, doesn't dual-classing in 2nd Ed do the exact same thing? The only difference being that in 2nd, you forget everything you knew for a while. When I DM, I personally rule that if you're switching (prestige) class, you should have at least spent some time with a member of that class to show you the ropes. It's not required by rules, but I'd rather have the option to take levels in whatever and then try to make it semi-realistic in the game with DMing, rather than just have the game tell me "No, not allowed".
and the thousands upon thousands of books containing new feats for people to optimise for maximum efficiency.
Certainly agreed. The problem was also that whenever a feat came out for something that was already physically possible, rule-wise it was now illegal to do without that feat, which is just stupid. Random example; I have a burly half-orc fighter in my group, and a small but dangerous halfling rogue. Their favorite tactic is for the fighter to pick up the rogue and fling him, knife first, into enemies. Fun times! However, now a feat comes out "Throw Friend" which allows you to throw other characters. Great, but this implies that what they've been doing is now illegal without the feat. We don't like this, so we ignore the feat. But now the wizard says "Well then, if they get to make free use of a feat, then I want that too."
If you want to sell more books to make more money, make more campaigns! I couldn't find many actual campains from WotC; they did plenty of stand-alone adventures but no actual campaigns, instead preferring to let Paizo handle that side of things.
I played The Tearing of the Weave and The Scouring of the Land, and liked them both a lot. If WotC had brought out more of those (and with actual maps in them that are not printed in the book and thus unusable) I would've gladly taken them up.
I prefer everything about 3rd edition D&D except for the ability scores and subsequent lack of restrictions. Aside from that, I think 3rd edition is superior to AD&D in just about every way. But I would be lying if I said I was experienced enough for my opinion to really mean anything.
But I'm glad you guys are having this conversation because I've learned an awful lot from following it.
@Drugar - 3E multi-classing is 2E Dual classing on MEGA steroids. 2E Dual classing is only humans and only once (fighter to Wizard), not as many times up to 4 as you want. It's like comparing a foot cast and a high end running shoe for use in a foot race.
I can see why they used point buy for games like NWN. When you're playing online, you need to level the field, because there wil be people who reload a gazillion times until their character has 16s in everything, which isn't fair on the hardcore player who accepts the fact that his character has only one 15 as his highest stat. In 3rd edition, ability scores are everything, and having less than a 16 in your primary ability is a serious handicap. I don't like it, but I can see why they used it for an online game.
I'm sure this is EXACTLY why they did it. They wanted the game to be accessible in computer gaming so they had to put controls around it that 'Balanced' it. Not saying this was a 'Better' solution, but I do understand the logic behind it. Basically they knew that NWN was coming out.
@Stormvessel - I grew up playing Advanced (later 2E) in PnP setting. I stopped before 3E came out so my fondest memories of the system are Advanced. I've since played more hours of NWN1-2 and ToEE and IWD2 that I had a right to, so I can appreciate 3E (as represented in CRPGs) and I understand some of the "Improvements". My personal opinion is that they "Fixed" a lot of stuff that wasn't broken. But I won't make any qualitative statements about 3E. Personal opinion is that 2E is "My game".
A lot of stuff in picture #2 is actually modules/adventures. But with the corebooks for 3e (and not counting third-party Hardbacks), you can see I have a Metric tonne of the stuff.
You know, I was going to suggest that. But I didn't want to come across as creepy. For some reason I had a mental picture of that Seinfeld episode where that gymnast is dating Seinfeld and he is talking about all the "positions" he can't wait to try. Totally unrelated, I know.
Edit: Seriously though, I think limiting male wisdom might make more sense from a real life perspective. Standardized testing doesn't really favor one sex over the other. Males are generally a tad bit smarter spatially whereas females are a tad bit smarter in areas involving memory. Wisdom makes more sense.
Here is how it could look with maximum possible scores.
Males 18 17 17 18 17 17
Females 16 18 18 18 18 18
Women have more points but take a sizable hit in strength. Women definitely have higher constitution (live longer, childbirth, etc). Higher wisdom, charisma, and dexterity. Males lose out on a lot but the extra strength really does make up for it when certain classes come into play.
But why let real life mess things up? It would suck if they did something like that.
As an adult male, I can say with great confidence that MEN are DEEPLY STUPID. We just don't have it in the brain department the way women do. Oh, sure we can invent things and we hold a monopoly on high paying jobs, but that by no means that we are smarter than a woman. It merely means that we got there first (and did a fair amount of pushing down of the opposition to get there).
Show a man cleavage and then make him do math. You'll see what I mean. He won't be capable of getting past one plus one equals two.
As an adult male, I can say with great confidence that MEN are DEEPLY STUPID. We just don't have it in the brain department the way women do.
I realise that I'm going against the grain by sticking up for the male gender here, but I don't think that's true. There are some very intelligent men out there. Sure, there are some stupid ones, but there are some stupid women as well. Considering that a lot of the world's most famous scientists are men, as well as the fact that we're more often left-side-of-the-brain thinkers (hence more likely to be logic driven), I'd say that declaring that men suffer in the IQ department is disingenuous. :P Sorry for the mini-rant but this popular acceptance that men are idiots deep down (yet somehow managed to oppress generations of women by banging their chests a lot) does annoy me sometimes, especially as it would never be accepted if it was the other way round.
I wouldn't say men are less dexterous than women either, because men are just as capable of being top level fencers, marksmen, and martial artists. Just because female leather clad slinky acrobatic assassin types are popular in Hollywood doesn't mean they're naturally better than men at everything that involves agility.
One thing women definitely have more of than men is charisma, but that's hardly balancing a limit in physical strength, unless the game depends heavily on social skills.
Or we could just leave it as it is, in the name of fairness, and to avoid causing unnecessary insults to either gender.
I am with @the_spyder in that I like 2e's rolled stats rather than 3e.
@LadyRhian Erm, you kinda did actually. *shrug* If that wasn't what you meant, you must admit thats a very reasonable interpretation!
Limiting male dex isn't likely accurate, men usually have similar potential flexibility and reflexes, but the type of excercise men prefer excercise that does not promote these traits. If reflexes were better for women, they would goaltend in the NHL. There was one Canadian I know that did play in a European league, maybe Finnish. I honestly think a constitution bonus or wisdom bonus would be pretty justifiable, women are known to be able to endure more pain for example.
My stack of DnD books is pretty excessive, especially since I mostly would read them unto near memorization. My 3rd ed books are probably 5ft tall, and another 2ft of assorted older editions, some old enough to have the doodled artwork. Might be a bit less, but its excessive enough that it was my 2nd most expensive hobby I'll ever have. Metalworking isn't the cheapest, but you can make chump change at least, if you get good.
Intelligence might work, bug I'm less certain thats true; male stupidity tends to be due to recklessness.
@Squire - My bad. I was trying to make a joke in the vein of "Women getting limited". It was all intended to be funny and not taken seriously (as so many of my other comments are jokes). I guess I need to be more careful as sarcasm (my favorite language by far) doesn't always translate on the internet.
I don't personally see a reason to gimp either anyone "Based on gender". I know women who can bench press WAY more than me and I think the potential is there should they be so inclined. I also think that both men and women do stupid stuff. It's in the nature of humanity to be that way. I know some REALLY smart women, and logical as heck as well, so I don't think that is a gender trait either.
It's funny but my original post said something like "sure men invent things and have the high ground as far as salary is concerned. This in no way means that women are less capable, but men just got there first (and did a fair amount of pushing down the competition)" or words to that effect. I maybe shouldn't have changed that, but in the end I think we are all equal in potential, if not necessarily in execution.
@DreadKhan Actually, I have always rolled stats and never used "point buy" systems (in D&D/AD&D). I still prefer 2e stats to 3e stats. I like that 18 is "Human Maximum" and that anyone beyond that has to be non-human. I liked that 1e Paladins and Rangers (and the Monk, actually, and the Illusionist) were pretty rare. If you managed to qualify (i.e. Rolled the stats to play one), you felt like a Super Star. It was a little better with the 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as desired version. Elsewhere, I've discussed the different mind-sets between the first 3 versions of AD&D. In D&D and 1e, you are an everyman. in 2e, you are a hero. In 3e You are a Superhero. 1e and original D&D had characters who were, for the most part, ordinary. My first D&D (Metzger version) Character was Zenobia, a female human fighter with a 14 strength. Nowadays, nobody would play a fighter with a strength that low. But for the time, that was actually pretty good. And she kicked butt.
In 2e, higher stats became the norm. in 1e, or at least, in the groups I played with, most people adopted the 3d6 arrange in order, or 3d6 arrange as desired version. in 2e, 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange as desired became the norm. (I won't even discuss the Unearthed Arcana roll 9d6 for your characters Prime stat all the way down to 3d6 for the least favored stat, adopt the three highest rolled dice from each, arrange as desired stuff because I don't know anyone who used it- characters with stats that high were BORING to play. If you're good at everything, why do you need anyone else's help? And when you play with yourself, all you are doing is self-abuse, so to speak.
Something else I never got was the characters with 200 hp at first level and whatnot. If the damage is proportional, what's the point? If you have 100 hp and take 20 damage, what is the real difference between having 10 hp and taking 2 damage?
Comments
Wtf? 17 int is higher than standard int at lvl 5 for even a wizard. 'Normal' exceptional stats fof a wizard take a 15 int at lvl 1, and boost it at 4 level intervals. Buying a tome is VERY expensive in 3rd, though enhancement bonus' are affordable by mid-level. NWN isn't really a good example.
17 is higher than what 3rd ed playtesting used for their wizard. Heck, I can readily think of 1 PC race with an intelligence bonus, the Sun Elf. There are some with LA, but thats different.
3.5 allows you to do almost anything with a PC, but it does still have pre-reqs for feats and prestige classes, and one hard to qualify for feat is definately Knockdown. Requiring Imp Trip usually means getting Expertise, but you can get that from some classes, if you really like using the feat. You sure as heck don't need to start at 18 str in a point buy system, and if the point buy in NWN is like the variant in the DMG, 18 costs 16 points, which is iirc half your total. Or even above half. 16 is wwwaaayyy cheaper in the DMG, 10 points vs 16. Imho, I rather like point buy, but mostly for characters written out as a 'build' idea. I would WAY rather have 14 or even 16 dex on a Fighter, and unless Heavy Plate or Stone Armour is available, I'd hate to go lower than 12, 13 is a sweet spot though for many nice feats. Imho, despite less armour choices, a Barbarian might go lighter on dex, since he has way less feats to choose; a low dex fighter will run out of good feats pretty fast.
That said, in IWD2 they did a 1 for 1 point buy, but the game is a fairly hard campaign, with none of the x3 crits from early archers 'fudged' to a roll of 19.
Speaking exclusively of the point buy system, a 5th level wizard with less than 17 INT is a rare thing indeed in my experience, at least as far as I can see. Why would you intentionally not put points up to 18 at level 1 for your primary stat? Which is more or less my entire thing.
In random die roll stat systems (I speak of 2E because that is what I know), you made use of what you got. If your highest stat was INT and it was 15, THAT was your wizard. And you could progress almost all the way to Arch-Wizard with that stat (I think you had to have 17 INT in order to cast 9th? Which makes no difference if I am wrong).
If 3E offered and played that way, I was unaware (and I suspect that I am not alone in that). The POINT BUY system is where I have an issue, and it is the one that is the most prevalent in CRPG type games.
Beyond if it was random die role or point buy, I had other issues with 3E. The fact that you could increase your STATS 5 times is another issue that I have. That made very little sense to me coming from a system where you couldn't do it. And it further (in my subjective view) allowed you to Min/Max your stats.
And finally, the fact that normal humans could have STATS above 18 (100 for fighters) was the third piece that I disliked. In 2E, if you had a 19 STR it was because you were an Ogre or other magically enhanced being. If you had a 25 STR, you were a Storm Giant. In 3E, it is not only possible to have a 30+ STR, (in the Point buy world) it was a regular thing. Why is it reasonable that some 30th level dude can have a STR rating THAT excessively higher than a 1st level?
So beyond the random nature of 3E STAT rolls, the Stat boost and the Stat cap removal (or at least movement beyond reason) are two other reasons why I PERSONALLY don't like 3E STATS. This is a personal and subjective opinion. I am NOT saying the system is bad or wrong, merely that I don't like it as much as 2E.
Nuff said...
Now, if you think about it, everyone is fairly vulnerable at low levels in 3rd ed, due to the way crits work. Many weapons have either a x3 modifier (meaning an arrow can 1 shot a mage with 18 cons at level one, putting him at full -10, and thats without even the easily available Point Blank Shot), or crit twice as often. 19s are rarely a miss!
So, for a Fighter now, you have 10 HP, and still, an orc with a great axe can quite possibly one shot you too.
Anyways, by 3rd level, a character that took decent dex and cons is not likely to get killed too suddenly, meaning you can down a potion/use magic, but an 18 in one stat leaves not much to work with in other stats. 2 more points isn't strictly irrelevant, but you're paying 6 points for that; you can set another stat to 14 for that! Now, if you think aboutmit, in 3rd ed, there are very good reasons for every single character to want a good dex, wis, and cons score, many use skills and thus can't dump int, and some even use charisma, especially Paladins (sorcerers do too, but they aren't in melee). If a warrior dumps wis, he will be very vulnerable to spells.
A sorcerer imho might consider maxing Cha, and a warrior using two-handed weapons might want to start with 18 str, but you will be relying on luck to survive for awhile. This is why some arcanes actually take Toughness at lvl 1, a normally crummy feat indeed.
18 str in 3rd ed is substantially weaker if you check, compared to 18/00. There are conversion charts even, fwiw. Iirc, 18 in 3rd is on par with 18 in 2nd ed for actual lifting/carrying.
Now, regarding the 'high stats' issue, for a human at 20th lvl, you can manage 18+5+5+6 under normal rules, thats your level ups, a +5 tome (or you could use many, many wishes), and a +6 enhancement item. There aren't many other possible bonuses, and according to the rules, its going yo be hard to get the tome. Thats a total of 34 btw, which is about Storm Giant. A titan has 37 strength, the Terrasque has 45 (!), for example. So, in 3rd, its almost imposdible to approach the physical strength of a strong god, who could be stronger than the Terrasque. In 2nd, you could arm wrestle a God.
2ed feels very un-intuitive and doesn't make sense to me RP-wise which is why I prefer 3.5/Pathfinder/5e's way of handling statistics. I felt like it was useful for making more realistic characters with flaws and advantages.
Example being my Piro character (Didn't use point buy for this. This is just what I think her stats would be like).
Piro
Gnome Sorcerer
8 str
12 dex
10 con
16 int
8 wis
16 cha
in 3.5 edition+ this makes her physically weak, a little quick with good aim, very smart with lots of skill points, bad will saves and perception, but then high speaking skills and natural charm (+Better sorcerer spell DCs and stuff). In 2e (At least BG/IWD) this nets Piro almost nothing except for a small bonus to lore (and minus to lore from wis) and shop prices. I would like to know what the attributes affect fully in PnP since the only 2e material I own is the Complete Book of Necromancers.
I've played 3.5/Pathfinder/5e with both point buy and with fully rolling statistics. I find the latter is more fun for one-time sessions but the former is more fun if you're seeking to create a character to last for a long time. I usually come up with an RP idea with a backstory and then choose my statistics to reflect that as opposed to the other way around.
On the subject of gaining stat points I find it more natural that if your big strong man keeps swinging his greataxe around he eventually gets stronger. If a thief practices dodging every day you get better at dodging.
An RP idea that would seem impossible for 2e is a low wisdom monk who over the course of his journey gains the wisdom he lacks and returns at the end of his adventure to his home/temple/whatever as a more wise man. Kitze Tribal (my monk) in my IWD:EE party has 14 wisdom and through his adventures he'll never become more wise despite discovering new things and gaining more worldly experience.
Edit: Going to use Pathfinder 20 point buy to create Val'myr.
Race: Drow (+2 dex, -2 con, +2 Cha)
Class: Cleric 1
Stats after racial modifiers.
Strength: 12
Dexterity: 12
Constitution: 9
Intelligence: 14
Wisdom: 15
Charisma: 16
Val'myr's early life martial training puts his strength at 12, natural elfy-ness puts dex at 12, he can't take a hit for his life so 9 con, he's studied all his life so 14 int, his preistly training under Shyka (Fey Death Deity) puts his wisdom at 15, and then he's super charming so 16 charisma.
Yes I could bump his wisdom to 18 but Val doesn't have 18 wisdom starting as a character. That's something he learns as he continues to learn more about the world and the gods.
Edit the second: I'd enjoy the rolling systems that IWD and BG use more had it been like Pool of Radiance where you can't re-allocate stat points from one to another. I felt the way that PoR used the rolling system was great!
Netrunner card game was a lot of fun as well... which was a cyber-punk theme strategy game.
My .02$ is the TCGs are fun but can get terribly expensive and you'll run into a lot of total douchebag players. If you can find a cool play group it's fun. My last regular play group did D&D one week and Magic the other, alternating.
I've heard good things about L5R card game... like it's fun and relatively cheap to play, but the less popular (cheap) ones you'll be hard pressed to find players and if you do begin collecting the future value of your collection won't be so hot compared to squirreling away some of the more desirable ones.
Spending too much real money if I were to get into the tabletop collectible card games would be a concern for me, indeed.
With regards to the "High stats" thing, again I use the example of Wulfgar who "from birth" is supposed to have been the strongest (human) man around (there were in fact half ogres that were stronger than he in the series). I read that to mean that at level 1, he had an 18/00 STR or the equivalent thereof. In short, he is the strongest human and no levels of advancement will increase him beyond that point, nor allow another player to overtake him. Short of magical enhancement, that's it. This is not replicatable in 3E system, period at least as far as I can see.
What 3rd E attempted to do was blend in skill into stats and blur the lines. In straight up combat, it makes sense that as you advance in martial combat that you make better effective use of your strength "In combat". However, that won't make lifting a tree or winning an arm wrestling match any easier. This was an unforeseen side effect of the path that they chose. I get WHY they did it (and do not wish to debate that point either). I just don't personally like THAT they did it. And it makes less sense "To me personally".
However, I feel no compulsion to justify my personal beliefs on the topic any further, nor was it ever my intent to convince others of the 'Rightness' of my position. I like the STAT system in 2E "MUCH" better than 3E. I stand by that and that's all I've got to say on the topic.
If I were you, I'd get a starter deck, a few booster packs (consider buying the boosters first, incase it influences your later choices), and play a few games. After you get a feel for how the game can play out, spend a few dollars (really, a few, not 50!) to get a few cards to make your strategy better. I wouldn't buy anything that costs more than $3 until you've played a good it, and know what you are looking for.
If you want a cheap, easy to find and hard to screw up deck, a Black deck using monsters with Shadow is hard to deal with. Black has lots of cheap cards that offer big power boosts, especially Spinal Graft. VERY evil card! Unholy Strength is great too.
In older DnD editions, PCs got a strength bonus when they reached middle age. Having a teenager capable of rolling the human maximum for strength is a bit stupid. Especially for males, as long as you aren't overly sedentary you will be physically stronger at 30 than you were at 18. If you actually train, you can improve your strength into your 50s, though unless you train for flexibility, you likely are slower and way less flexible.
So, knowing this, why would it be a good thing to allow a character to start at the human maximum, and to either way have few options to improve. 3rd Ed offers a huge buff in realism by allowing stats to improve slightly.
Anyways, in 2nd ed there are ways to boost str, most similar to 3rd ed. Yeah, you can't 'roll' 23 strength in 3rd ed (human non-magical maximum), but why should it be possible to?
What the heck is this bit about blending skills and stats in 3rd? Can you elaborate? As I understand your complaint, the 3rd ed skill system places MUCH higher value on skill ranks vs stats, so I am not sure where you are going wih this. Again, this is realistic. If you have no training/practice jumping, you will not be jumping as far.
In combat, you can get a pretty huge benefit in 3rd ed from physical strength, especially with a two-handed weapon. At 18 btw, its no coincidence imho that you do +6 damage with a two handed weapon, ie the same extra damage 18/00 offered. You also get +4 to hit, but ACs are higher in 3rd.
In both systems, warriors get a full attack bonus progression on a d20, meaning 'skill' makes a bigger difference than strength usually in both.
Anyways, feel free to drop the topic. We might just have to disagree.
I felt that 3e was made to appeal to those who were into WOW and similar games with the feats. What really peeved me about 3e (and 3.5e) was TOO MANY CLASSES. And too many books, also. I have something like 55 books for 3e, all hardback, and a bunch of softcover books as well. (I bought most of them when 4e was on the verge of coming out and I could get them for cheaper) Whereas, not counting the softcover class/race books for 2e, I have like 10 hardcover books for 2e. I definitely ran into "Book overload" when it came to 3e. And all those different classes they introduced… EEK. That's a lot to keep track of, if you're a GM. With 2e, you have about 9 (10 if you include the monk). A Much more manageable number.
Again, not saying 3E STAT rules are "Bad" (objectively) merely that I don't like them "As much" (subjectively) as 2E. Nuff said.
@LadyRhian - Yeah, I felt that way as well. And I really did not like the fact that all of the sudden EVERYONE could cast wizard spells. Or that you could play ADD with your class choices. "Hey, I leveled up. Wonder what I will be next."
All subjective and personal choice.
I actually agree that 3rd eventually had way too many classes, and even in core, there were still several that should be prestige classes. I think 2nd ed had too many base classes too though; however, from what I read ages ago, there are 4 classes really, warriors, rogues, arcane casters and divine casters. Everything specific is better looked at as a kit. Ranger, Paladin, Bard, Druid, Sorcerer and Barbarian should all be easily accessible prestige classes instead. My biggest peeve was the ridiculously unnecessary Scout class. Impractical on many adventures, and very unoriginal.
If you ever get a chance, check out the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana variant of Basic Classes... that system uses only 3 classes; warrior, expert (aka skill specialist), and magic user, which can be arcane or divine. Everything is completely free form, so you have lots of options. You are likely to be a bit less powerful, but much more unique. The system allows prestige classes, but you hardly need them.
You can't really claim book overload too easily, as 2nd ed had a ridiculous number of those Handbooks, meaning even without settings it had heaps of variant/optional expansion books, including a plethora of kits that amount to an RP only kit. Which is fine, but just call yourself a fighter and move on!
Erm, 3rd ed came out before WoW I'm pretty sure. I think you could argue Diablo had a bit of influence though, but I haven't much Diablo experience, and what I have had doesn't really support that position. 3rd ed was a system that cannibalized all the other DnD offshoots, since I think DnD changed very little between editions until 3rd, which was a complete reworking. 2nd ed let you 'roleplay' whatever you want, while 3rd has actual rules to support it.
To comisserate, I admit character building was very slow in 3rd ed, and each level up could kill an entire session. Also, it WAS possible to make a character quite weak in 3rd ed even if it rolled good stats, 2nd ed didn't give many choices for you to screw up!
In 3E, they went berzonkers with like 5 different books JUST on prestige classes, several books on Arcane goings on from just about every angle etc... Basically they were trying to maximize their franchise monetary income by vastly increasing the peripherals. I never collected the 3E books, but I'd believe @LadyRhian if she says 55 books. There's nothing like that (that I am aware of) in 2E, even if you throw in Advanced into the mix. But it is simple progression of scale as the industry began to be more mainstream.
3E definitely came out before WoW and quite probably before Diablo 2 as well. I do know, in fact I read several articles on the topic, that 3E was the very first attempt to make the game more accessible to the electronic age. The intent was to make a game that translated well into what was considered an emerging market at the time, that of video gaming. 4E took it further and was ABSOLUTELY focused towards more fully bringing the game into the CRPG market. This was undoubtedly influenced by the monetary successes of games like Everquest and later WoW.
Still, having played both, I vastly prefer 3rd Edition over 2nd, if only because to a new player, 2nd edition is byzantine in its seemingly random attribute bonuses, unintuitive attack system and myriad of restrictions. You're a dwarf or a halfling so it's impossible for you to study magic? You're a half elf so you don't understand Evocation? You're a non-human so no Paladinhood for you? Why?
I also never got why the stat range of 8-14ish in 2nd edition was almost entirely superfluous, bonus wise. The bonuses given seem arbitrary, scaling so poorly Strength even had to be split up because the damage would have to ramp up ridiculously quick to account for monsters far beyond human abilities.
There is no cap on abilities in 3rd, meaning there is far more room for variety in the abilities department. Ancient Dragons would be capped at 24/25 strength in 2nd, giving a +12 to damage. Decent, but just as much as any god can dish out, who should be far above them. More importantly, only twice as much as the level 1 fighter who got a lucky roll, which seems like a small difference between such ridiculous levels of power.
With no maximum stat cap for giant monsters, you can make them truly threatening and give them stats not *just* above an adventurer's level, but waaay above.
I like that a character's stats increase over the course of their adventuring as well, it makes sense. Start at level 1 with a new sword in your hand and by the time you've reached level 4, surely you've built up some muscle mass and gained a point in Strength. Or maybe your experiences and adventures have broadened your horizons, giving +1 to wisdom, or maybe the exposure to different cultures and people have made you more outgoing and have given you +1 charisma.
It's something nice, but not truly unbalancing either. With a starting score of 18, an exceptional and rare value, over 20 levels you can add +5 to that, changing your modifier to that stat from +4 to +6.
The idea that Sir Roderick the level 20 knight, who can slay dragons singlehandedly has not changed physically or mentally at all in the years of adventuring since level 1 just seems weird to me. Even by level 5, a character (both in 2nd and 3rd Ed) can perform superhuman acts and carve a legend for himself. Why restrict that to just attack bonus/thac0, saves and skills/non-weapon proficiencies? That's only what a character can DO, not what he IS.
I'm not saying 3rd is perfect, it has way too many bonusses from way too many sources which can get super complicated. Not to mention figuring out how a grapple works (though I don't know if 2nd Edition did that any better). If you have a powergamer in your group, it's also a relatively easy system to exploit. But it feels far more fair and less abitrary than 2nd Ed, which I really like.
I can respect 3E for some of those types of changes. However, I grew up on 2E (well, actually on Basic and then Advanced actually) so that's gonna be my favorite. Plus my issues listed above (which I won't reiterate here) about the Stat system and the A-D-D (not Advanced Dungeons and Dragon) method of leveling up. But meh, I admit that I might be in the minority here. It's all subjective anyway.
As for the restrictions...I dunno, I kind of like those too, but I think they could have been expanded upon. For example, I'd have dwarves and sun elves (but not wood elves) able to be paladins, mountain dwarves able to be wizards, etc.
I think my biggest problem with 3rd edition was the totally free mutliclassing (seriously? I can learn what the wizard took 20 years to learn by "looking over his shoulder"? Yeah...I'm going to start looking over the shouder of the doctors in the hospital where I work and I'll be a qualified GP within a month, according to 3e logic!!), and the thousands upon thousands of books containing new feats for people to optimise for maximum efficiency. I also didn't like the fact that there were too many classes (many of which served the same function as another class but had some special unique ability), and too many bloody magic users!! 2nd edition had a nice magic system - I prefer games where magic/sorcery is rare (and preferably considered evil and not understood), but in 3rd edition, just about every man and his dog could do magic in some way.
If you want to sell more books to make more money, make more campaigns! I couldn't find many actual campains from WotC; they did plenty of stand-alone adventures but no actual campaigns, instead preferring to let Paizo handle that side of things.
@Stormvessel bear in mind that this was made in the 1970s, before modern feminism.
When I DM, I personally rule that if you're switching (prestige) class, you should have at least spent some time with a member of that class to show you the ropes. It's not required by rules, but I'd rather have the option to take levels in whatever and then try to make it semi-realistic in the game with DMing, rather than just have the game tell me "No, not allowed". Certainly agreed. The problem was also that whenever a feat came out for something that was already physically possible, rule-wise it was now illegal to do without that feat, which is just stupid.
Random example; I have a burly half-orc fighter in my group, and a small but dangerous halfling rogue. Their favorite tactic is for the fighter to pick up the rogue and fling him, knife first, into enemies. Fun times! However, now a feat comes out "Throw Friend" which allows you to throw other characters. Great, but this implies that what they've been doing is now illegal without the feat. We don't like this, so we ignore the feat. But now the wizard says "Well then, if they get to make free use of a feat, then I want that too."
It needlessly complicates things. I played The Tearing of the Weave and The Scouring of the Land, and liked them both a lot.
If WotC had brought out more of those (and with actual maps in them that are not printed in the book and thus unusable) I would've gladly taken them up.
But I'm glad you guys are having this conversation because I've learned an awful lot from following it.
@Stormvessel - I grew up playing Advanced (later 2E) in PnP setting. I stopped before 3E came out so my fondest memories of the system are Advanced. I've since played more hours of NWN1-2 and ToEE and IWD2 that I had a right to, so I can appreciate 3E (as represented in CRPGs) and I understand some of the "Improvements". My personal opinion is that they "Fixed" a lot of stuff that wasn't broken. But I won't make any qualitative statements about 3E. Personal opinion is that 2E is "My game".
@Stormvessel Limit Male Dex, maybe?
Pictures of *Just* my sourcebooks for the AD%D, 2e and 3e games: http://ladyrhianwriter.deviantart.com/art/Redone-Geek-Cred-Sourcebooks-1-338369649
Picture #2 (I have just THAT many, yes.)
http://ladyrhianwriter.deviantart.com/art/Redone-Geek-Cred-Sourcebooks-2-338369824
A lot of stuff in picture #2 is actually modules/adventures. But with the corebooks for 3e (and not counting third-party Hardbacks), you can see I have a Metric tonne of the stuff.
...
*straight face*
Edit: Seriously though, I think limiting male wisdom might make more sense from a real life perspective. Standardized testing doesn't really favor one sex over the other. Males are generally a tad bit smarter spatially whereas females are a tad bit smarter in areas involving memory. Wisdom makes more sense.
Here is how it could look with maximum possible scores.
Males
18
17
17
18
17
17
Females
16
18
18
18
18
18
Women have more points but take a sizable hit in strength. Women definitely have higher constitution (live longer, childbirth, etc). Higher wisdom, charisma, and dexterity. Males lose out on a lot but the extra strength really does make up for it when certain classes come into play.
But why let real life mess things up? It would suck if they did something like that.
Show a man cleavage and then make him do math. You'll see what I mean. He won't be capable of getting past one plus one equals two.
I wouldn't say men are less dexterous than women either, because men are just as capable of being top level fencers, marksmen, and martial artists. Just because female leather clad slinky acrobatic assassin types are popular in Hollywood doesn't mean they're naturally better than men at everything that involves agility.
One thing women definitely have more of than men is charisma, but that's hardly balancing a limit in physical strength, unless the game depends heavily on social skills.
Or we could just leave it as it is, in the name of fairness, and to avoid causing unnecessary insults to either gender.
Limiting male dex isn't likely accurate, men usually have similar potential flexibility and reflexes, but the type of excercise men prefer excercise that does not promote these traits. If reflexes were better for women, they would goaltend in the NHL. There was one Canadian I know that did play in a European league, maybe Finnish. I honestly think a constitution bonus or wisdom bonus would be pretty justifiable, women are known to be able to endure more pain for example.
My stack of DnD books is pretty excessive, especially since I mostly would read them unto near memorization. My 3rd ed books are probably 5ft tall, and another 2ft of assorted older editions, some old enough to have the doodled artwork. Might be a bit less, but its excessive enough that it was my 2nd most expensive hobby I'll ever have. Metalworking isn't the cheapest, but you can make chump change at least, if you get good.
Intelligence might work, bug I'm less certain thats true; male stupidity tends to be due to recklessness.
I don't personally see a reason to gimp either anyone "Based on gender". I know women who can bench press WAY more than me and I think the potential is there should they be so inclined. I also think that both men and women do stupid stuff. It's in the nature of humanity to be that way. I know some REALLY smart women, and logical as heck as well, so I don't think that is a gender trait either.
It's funny but my original post said something like "sure men invent things and have the high ground as far as salary is concerned. This in no way means that women are less capable, but men just got there first (and did a fair amount of pushing down the competition)" or words to that effect. I maybe shouldn't have changed that, but in the end I think we are all equal in potential, if not necessarily in execution.
In 2e, higher stats became the norm. in 1e, or at least, in the groups I played with, most people adopted the 3d6 arrange in order, or 3d6 arrange as desired version. in 2e, 4d6, drop the lowest, arrange as desired became the norm. (I won't even discuss the Unearthed Arcana roll 9d6 for your characters Prime stat all the way down to 3d6 for the least favored stat, adopt the three highest rolled dice from each, arrange as desired stuff because I don't know anyone who used it- characters with stats that high were BORING to play. If you're good at everything, why do you need anyone else's help? And when you play with yourself, all you are doing is self-abuse, so to speak.
Something else I never got was the characters with 200 hp at first level and whatnot. If the damage is proportional, what's the point? If you have 100 hp and take 20 damage, what is the real difference between having 10 hp and taking 2 damage?