Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Any new info on Icewind Dale II?

13»

Comments

  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,625
    kanisatha wrote: »
    The counterpoint to 3.5e eventually becoming bloated and over-powerful is that 2e was under-powerful and empty and boring. Many level-ups involved nothing for the player to do, and some level-ups resulted only in the character gaining 1 hp and that's it!

    I'll take over-powered 3.5e over boring 2e any day. At least with an over-powered and bloated system you can fix that simply by not using a lot of stuff in your game. Problem solved. With 2e there's nothing you can do to make it better. You're just stuck with what you have, which is an empty and boring system.

    I completely disagree with that, personally. 2e made every high level class feel extremely important in their own way, but especially the mages, druids, and clerics. Basically everything changes once you can cast the Wish spell. There is very little that you can not do at that stage.

    Don't forget that the HLA's from TOB were also based on (for the most part) real high level abilities that were available in second edition, and not all of them were implemented. A high level cleric can call a crusade and raise an army very quickly.

    sarevok57jjstraka34ThacoBell
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,625
    Yeah, that's also true. No matter how strong you were, you weren't invincible in 2nd edition. Go into an encounter unprepared and you can have long lasting consequences, beyond mere death. You really had to use your brain in 2nd edition and that's why it will always remain my favorite.

    sarevok57themazingness
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,796
    edited January 2020
    I'll just flat-out say it: I don't really like 3rd Edition rules in regards to video games. I'm sure people have their reasons for hating 2nd Edition in tabletop and praising 3.5 as the be all/end all of real-life D&D sessions. I can't speak to that. I read sourcebooks, but that's about the extent of it. But to me, the early Infinity Engine games and Goldbox are what I played long before I ever touched Neverwinter Nights. I like THACO. People act like it's a damn calculus problem. It just means negative numbers are better. It's not rocket science. I like weapon proficiencies. I like that each class you choose has clearly defined weaknesses that are just as important as their strengths to take into account. I like what you have to think about and give-up to multi or dual class.

    As for Icewind Dale 2, at least being in the Infinity Engine keeps it SORTA close to the older games. It's 3rd Edition, but it's nowhere near as fully-implemented as it is in Neverwinter Nights and Temple of Elemental Evil. They are still making concessions to the engine. But, I mean, yeah. 2nd Edition all the way.

    sarevok57themazingnessThacoBellBGLover
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 5,811
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    I'll just flat-out say it: I don't really like 3rd Edition rules in regards to video games. I'm sure people have their reasons for hating 2nd Edition in tabletop and praising 3.5 as the be all/end all of real-life D&D sessions. I can't speak to that. I read sourcebooks, but that's about the extent of it. But to me, the early Infinity Engine games and Goldbox are what I played long before I ever touched Neverwinter Nights. I like THACO. People act like it's a damn calculus problem. It just means negative numbers are better. It's not rocket science. I like weapon proficiencies. I like that each class you choose has clearly defined weaknesses that are just as important as their strengths to take into account. I like what you have to think about and give-up to multi or dual class.

    As for Icewind Dale 2, at least being in the Infinity Engine keeps it SORTA close to the older games. It's 3rd Edition, but it's nowhere near as fully-implemented as it is in Neverwinter Nights and Temple of Elemental Evil. They are still making concessions to the engine. But, I mean, yeah. 2nd Edition all the way.

    to bad there wasn't a way to like and agree to this

    the baldur's gate games were my introduction to DnD and perhaps because of that i have a bit of a bias to their rule set, but i also agree that i like the thac0 system, and as you said, some people make it seem like its way harder than it actually is, and as you say; when it comes to AC, thac0 and saving throws the lower the better, not hard to figure out, infact saving throws are super easy to figure out; whatever your save is; just roll higher and you pass, pretty simple stuff

    ThacoBell
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.

    Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.

    WarChiefZeke
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,625
    edited January 2020
    The Ranger class in particular is competitive against spellcasters at all but the highest levels, imo, and even then if you play your cards right. Because they can tame magical beasts and because there are so many magical beasts to choose from with a wide variety of special abilities, what you can accomplish is only limited by your creativity. The Handbook gives you examples of beasts that can do things like destroy buildings and fortifications and give you flight.

    At high levels, rangers can have dragons as mounts. Because of their empathic link, the ranger can extend his hardiness ability to the dragon he rides. Both have a natural, blanket protection against any sort of non-damage effect, beyond what they gain from spells, potions, and magical equipment.

    The wizard may be supremely powerful, but you can't say this isn't a decently fair fight.

    Post edited by WarChiefZeke on
    ThacoBellkanisathasemiticgoddess
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,167
    90% of my experience comes from pc games, as opposed to P&P, so take this with a grain of salt. But I've long favored a hybrid between 2 and 3.5. Give me the basic rules and class structure of 2e (and multiclassing!), and toss in the fewer restrictions of 3e. Let me multiclass any two or three classes together (unsing 2e progression), let any race be any class or kit, loosen alignment restrictions, etc. And add feats, the stuff that adds utility to classes, rather than breaks them outright (for good or bad).

    The way I have my BG mods set up is actaully very similar to this. Now if only there was a non-insane way to multiclass everything...

    WarChiefZekekanisatha
  • themazingnessthemazingness Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 701
    kanisatha wrote: »
    Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.

    Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.

    Honestly, you have a good point. That is the one benefit that I feel 3e has over 2e. I haven't played 5e a ton since there isn't really much in the way of video games, but it seems like it might be the best of both (my only experience is playing a few sessions as a ranger, so my observation is admittedly a poor one). It seems like it did away with the excessive customization and had some nice skill options as classes leveled up, and I liked that. It's why I'd like to see some 5e cRPGs (not counting the casual apps and the failed Sword Coast Legends that we have).

    kanisatha
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    kanisatha wrote: »
    Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.

    Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.

    I generally prefer 3.5th to 2nd edition but it's not like 3.5 wasn't horribly biased in casters direction too. There's a reason Clerics and Druids and considered the most powerful classes. That's still the case in the computer games too, especially with the looser rest mechanics.

    kanisathaelminster
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    90% of my experience comes from pc games, as opposed to P&P, so take this with a grain of salt. But I've long favored a hybrid between 2 and 3.5. Give me the basic rules and class structure of 2e (and multiclassing!), and toss in the fewer restrictions of 3e. Let me multiclass any two or three classes together (unsing 2e progression), let any race be any class or kit, loosen alignment restrictions, etc. And add feats, the stuff that adds utility to classes, rather than breaks them outright (for good or bad).

    The way I have my BG mods set up is actaully very similar to this. Now if only there was a non-insane way to multiclass everything...
    Absolutely. In an ideal world that is exactly how things would be done. You take the best of A and the best of B and combine them together to get C.

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    kanisatha wrote: »
    Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.

    Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.

    Honestly, you have a good point. That is the one benefit that I feel 3e has over 2e. I haven't played 5e a ton since there isn't really much in the way of video games, but it seems like it might be the best of both (my only experience is playing a few sessions as a ranger, so my observation is admittedly a poor one). It seems like it did away with the excessive customization and had some nice skill options as classes leveled up, and I liked that. It's why I'd like to see some 5e cRPGs (not counting the casual apps and the failed Sword Coast Legends that we have).

    The fighter class is my favorite class to play in D&D, although I also like ranger and paladin. And as such I always felt these classes got the shaft in 2e. @WarChiefZeke I do appreciate your input.
    scriver wrote: »
    kanisatha wrote: »
    Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.

    Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.

    I generally prefer 3.5th to 2nd edition but it's not like 3.5 wasn't horribly biased in casters direction too. There's a reason Clerics and Druids and considered the most powerful classes. That's still the case in the computer games too, especially with the looser rest mechanics.

    Yes of course. I think all editions of D&D favored the casting classes to one extent or another. But for me at least in 3.5e the martial classes felt like you finally could go somewhere with them.

  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,625
    scriver wrote: »
    kanisatha wrote: »
    Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.

    Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.

    I generally prefer 3.5th to 2nd edition but it's not like 3.5 wasn't horribly biased in casters direction too. There's a reason Clerics and Druids and considered the most powerful classes. That's still the case in the computer games too, especially with the looser rest mechanics.

    You could really gimp casters in both editions by requiring the use of spell components. Most ignored those rules because it really lowered the power level of casters, I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that used them. Imagine needing to sacrifice a gemstone for every cast of stoneskin.

    StummvonBordwehrsemiticgoddessThacoBell
  • sarevok57sarevok57 Member Posts: 5,811
    scriver wrote: »
    kanisatha wrote: »
    Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.

    Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.

    I generally prefer 3.5th to 2nd edition but it's not like 3.5 wasn't horribly biased in casters direction too. There's a reason Clerics and Druids and considered the most powerful classes. That's still the case in the computer games too, especially with the looser rest mechanics.

    You could really gimp casters in both editions by requiring the use of spell components. Most ignored those rules because it really lowered the power level of casters, I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that used them. Imagine needing to sacrifice a gemstone for every cast of stoneskin.

    at least where 3rd edition is concerned, if a spell has a component of less than 1 GP even the players hand book says don't worry about ( it basically just says; assume your wizard filled up their pouch during any "down time" )

    but with that being said, a wizard should not be able to cast their spells if their pouch is gone ( and if they don't have the eschew materials feat ) or if they don't have their spell book ( unless they have spell knowledge feat i believe it is )

    but with sorcerers as far as i know dont need material components since its "magic from within themselves" or some such, there for sure don't need a spell book at least

    in my campaign anything that had a costly component we always paid the price ( except for stoneskin because that price is just plain stupid for a spell that is perfectly balanced for its level - and yet mordenkainen's disjunction has no costly component lol? - )

    every since day 1, 100 gold or white pearls to identify items, although we also have a rule that if you roll a high enough knowledge arcana check you can identify items that way

    and you have to keep the prices for the raise dead spells, if you make it so all the raise dead spells cost nothing, then there is no consequence for death in your campaign, and basically no fear for it, unless you get a party wipe, you just lololol it up and everyone is back to normal, although in my campaign, the raise dead spells still cost as much, i dont use that ridiculous CON loss rule, the gold piece cost is enough, plus with that, i make it so true resurrection just takes 1 round to cast ( so then there is an actual difference between true and normal resurrection )

    kanisathaWarChiefZeke
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    sarevok57 wrote: »
    scriver wrote: »
    kanisatha wrote: »
    Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.

    Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.

    I generally prefer 3.5th to 2nd edition but it's not like 3.5 wasn't horribly biased in casters direction too. There's a reason Clerics and Druids and considered the most powerful classes. That's still the case in the computer games too, especially with the looser rest mechanics.

    You could really gimp casters in both editions by requiring the use of spell components. Most ignored those rules because it really lowered the power level of casters, I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that used them. Imagine needing to sacrifice a gemstone for every cast of stoneskin.

    at least where 3rd edition is concerned, if a spell has a component of less than 1 GP even the players hand book says don't worry about ( it basically just says; assume your wizard filled up their pouch during any "down time" )

    but with that being said, a wizard should not be able to cast their spells if their pouch is gone ( and if they don't have the eschew materials feat ) or if they don't have their spell book ( unless they have spell knowledge feat i believe it is )

    but with sorcerers as far as i know dont need material components since its "magic from within themselves" or some such, there for sure don't need a spell book at least

    in my campaign anything that had a costly component we always paid the price ( except for stoneskin because that price is just plain stupid for a spell that is perfectly balanced for its level - and yet mordenkainen's disjunction has no costly component lol? - )

    every since day 1, 100 gold or white pearls to identify items, although we also have a rule that if you roll a high enough knowledge arcana check you can identify items that way

    and you have to keep the prices for the raise dead spells, if you make it so all the raise dead spells cost nothing, then there is no consequence for death in your campaign, and basically no fear for it, unless you get a party wipe, you just lololol it up and everyone is back to normal, although in my campaign, the raise dead spells still cost as much, i dont use that ridiculous CON loss rule, the gold piece cost is enough, plus with that, i make it so true resurrection just takes 1 round to cast ( so then there is an actual difference between true and normal resurrection )
    This is how my group played as well.

    WarChiefZekesarevok57
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,625
    edited January 2020
    I always used the 1 permanent CON loss rule whenbeing brought back to life. Makes it so that deaths matter. You only have a handful before you start losing power fast. And if you get too low, I may just give you a crippling disease due to your ill health, provided you aren't immune to such things by class.

    Chronic decapitations are known to cause long term health problems.

    Grond0semiticgoddessGrammarsalad
Sign In or Register to comment.