There are worlds of difference. Basically, the design philosophy of 3.5 was to make it accessible to a wide marker(ie, non gamers). In that interest, they made some of the weird "lower scores are better, but you want to roll high and pluses subtract but not all the time" stuff( THAC0, AC, saves) into a standard "higher is better, all the time" format. They also added more customization options through a point buy based skill system and feats, which are like Hla in TOB(in fact, many Hla for fighters draw on feats for inspiration) only you get feats starting at lv1, and they are much less powerful to start with.
Does that help?
Yea it does, thanks @revaar. How about the magic system, is 3.5's similar to 2.5? Do classes still work in a similar manner? If the biggest change was to the descriptors of player stats and all the complexity of 2.5 is still there with a consistent numerical representation of abilities / saves etc, then 3.5 sounds great. Not really sure about the feats though.. are there still weapon proficiencies?
I'm a 3.5 e gal. Haven't played any other real d&d (okay, one session of 4th ed, which left me nauseous...) I do enjoy Pathfinder too, just have never played it. Read through the rules and all of course!
Good to hear I'm not the only who reads the rulebooks just for fun!
Yea it does, thanks @revaar. How about the magic system, is 3.5's similar to 2.5? Do classes still work in a similar manner? If the biggest change was to the descriptors of player stats and all the complexity of 2.5 is still there with a consistent numerical representation of abilities / saves etc, then 3.5 sounds great. Not really sure about the feats though.. are there still weapon proficiencies?
Classes automatically come with the ability to utilize certain weaponry, which would be the equivalent of a single proficiency in any given class of weapons in AD&D. Going beyond that requires feats.
It works out about the same. Fighters progress in those types of feats faster than any other class, so that's the draw of that class as opposed to paladin or ranger.
Magic works similar. Divine spells were altered to be on a similar path as arcane magic, as in both get up to 9th level spells. That's the only major difference, really.
Next year we should see the release of 5e (or "D&D Next" as they're calling it).
2e is my favorite edition, but I also have a soft spot for Gygax's 1e. I can see why 3e had to come around, but when you start implementing all those supplements, it gets even worse than AD&D supposedly got. I'm sure most people will disagree, though. Also, my preference for AD&D is sort of influenced by BG.
As far as I'm concerned there has never been a fourth edition. I remember buying a game back in 2008 that vaguely resembled D&D, though. I'm sure a lot of people like it, but it wasn't my cup of tea.
@Kilivitz I liked a lot of the revisions in 3e, but thought they went way overboard with all the prestige classes, point buys, and putting the control of the game in the hands of the players, instead of the DM.
I [...] thought they went way overboard with all the prestige classes, point buys, and putting the control of the game in the hands of the players, instead of the DM.
This. Suddenly D&D became a game about "character builds" and "customization". If I wanted that, I'd be playing GURPS instead. I liked how classes (as well as races) fitted certain archetypes, and that's why I wasn't so keen on dropping race/class restrictions. I guess you could justify any character with a good story, but having players feel entitled to a Halfling Sorcerer/Monk/Druid because the core rules said so brought me more frustration than fun while DMing.
And the aesthetic of the game as a whole didn't please me as well. That Sorcerer image kicked my suspension of disbelief in the crotch as I wondered why would anyone wear anything with that many buckles. No wonder he was a Sorcerer - no Mage (oh, sorry - Wizard. Bah) could manage to study/memorize spells and get on and off that outfit while managing to sleep 8 hours a day on an adventure.
I'm not saying D&D necessarily needs to be "Tolkienesque", but the default setting was too anime for my tastes. Ironically, 4e toned that down but on the other hand managed to make the whole game more like Exalted than any other version.
But what am I saying? There was no fourth edition.
@Kilivitz Yeah, the obsession with builds and character customization seemed to preclude the need for using one's imagination and to actually role play.
In my "book," there's the Thief class with two subclasses: Assassin and Thief-Acrobat. "Rogue" places a value judgment on the class. Not all thieves are scoundrels. "Thief" defines what the class does, as do the subclasses.
As I remember, "Rogue" was the type of character in which Thieves and Bards fit in. Just as Fighters, Paladins and Rangers were "Warriors", Mages were "Wizards" and Clerics and Druids were "Priests". In fact, any classes beyond the 4 basics (Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Mage) were considered optional.
3e did away with that and tried to make every class more distinct from one another, thus turning Thieves into "generic" Rogues. Nothing wrong with that, but it was the beginning of a process that culminated with me filing for divorce with 3e due to irreconcilable differences, if you'll excuse the horrible analogy.
But since I've already started it, it's worth mentioning that in that context, 4e was a one night stand I'd rather forget about.
I like the multi-classing version of the earlier editions (and the rolling of stats as opposed to a point-buy system) but ... but... favoured souls tipped the scale. I wish someone would make it a kit for BG. If wizards get sorcerers, clerics should get a bit of spontaneous love.
I'm not very disciplined you see. What I liked about 2nd is that multi and dual classing was a BIG DEAL. You couldn't just splash into another class with ease like you can in 3 and 3.5 (dunno about 4. Never played it). I actually quite like 3.5. A lot actually. But 2nd edition and it's many limitations actually made for more enjoyable roleplaying experiences for me.
I never considered it "2.5" but those supplements mentioned (Combat and Tactics, Skills and Powers, and Spells and Magic) allowed you to extend the ruleset without taking the flavour away from 2nd edition. Also, the reddish-covered kit books and blue-covered ones like Arms & Equipment did the same and described a bunch of details that were not in the core 2e rulebooks. There were some 3rd ed. supplements I use that cover thing that weren't covered in 2e (particularly things like more info on FR regions outside western Faerun) and also some 1st ed. books like Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures that haven't since been really replicated in their content, but I think 2e was the most sensible in its ruleset. Attempts by 3e+ to make it more user-friendly went a bit too far I think what with prestige classes and whatnot, and also I think it did some revisionary history to the FR chronology that wasn't really needed or wanted.
I have only two books for 4e that I bought not realizing they were for 4e. One is "The Grand History of the Realms" and the Other is the "Dungeon Survival Guide". I also have two of the soft covered booka, one black ("The Complete Gladiators Handbook" for Dark Sun) and one parchment-colored ("The Complete Sha'ir's Handbook" for Al-Quadim). I even found the Blue-covered Necromancers book and the "Sages and Specialists" book that I never saw in the stores...
And I have to say, I don't consider Unearthed Arcana 1.5e. Or the "Skills and Powers" and similar books to be 2.5e. It was only 3e that had a real 3.5e (they even printed books with this on the cover!) which is just one reason I think 3e hastened the death of D&D. Too many editions in too short a time. (Pathfinder being 3.75 is ridiculous, too.) People have limited money, and sometimes I think that redoing the game and printing new books is a way for the company to assure themselves more money, because then you have to buy all the new books, which costs a substantial sum of money. So the faster they can churn out shiny new editions, the more money they can make. I realize this sounds jaded, but can you blame me?
1e lasted 12 years, from the publication of the first hardcover book in 1977, until the 2nd edition books started publishing in 1989. 2e lasted 11 years, from 1989 until 2000, when 3e books were published. That's 23 years with 2 editions. 3e lasted 3 years, as the 3.5e books were published in 2003. 3.5 lasted 4 years, with new books being published in 2007 (and planning for this edition began in 2005- a mere 2 years after the new books were published!). Now they are planning for D&D Next, which is supposed to publish in 2014... making 4 new editions in a mere 14 years (12 if you assume that a new edition starts with the planning of D&D Next). The speed of these new editions makes me think they were horrible- you don't change something that fast if it's good.
Part of the reason I resent 3e is "too many goddamn sourcebooks". I just did a count of the ones I have for 3e (and I am including 3.5e in that). Now, this is just for the basic game... I'm not including the stuff for 3e Forgotten Realms, which is even more. 51! 51 effing sourcebooks. And this is only the hardcover stuff. That's at $20 to $25 per book (I'll err on the side of generosity here- some of them were more). That is over $1300 just in sourcebooks, assuming you bought them off the shelf and not from Ebay or a secondhand store. And not counting the Adventure books like "Expedition to the Demonweb Pits" or "Expedition to the Tomb of Horrors" or the third party books like "Legends and Lairs: City Works" Or "Legends and Lairs: Mythic Races" books I have.
Hmm, from reading this thead, I just put two and two together for the first time. It wasn't 2nd edition I grew up playing, it was 1st edition AD&D. What I was confused about, was that I always thought AD&D *was* second edition, because I also knew about the original "basic" D&D. All these years, and I didn't realize that I have never played anything but 1st edition and the Neverwinter Nights version of 3rd edition.
That means that I answered the poll wrong. I should have said that 1st edition was my favorite.
After buying the core books, you could play D&D for the rest of your life without buying a single supplement. This isn't good for Wizards of the Coast, specially because they are under Hasbro, and the people there aren't interested in keeping brands that don't bring any profit (or, worse, cause them to lose money). So you can see why they are compelled to keep putting out sourcebooks.
Now, what kind of sourcebook will guarantee good sales? Adventures don't sell that well - they are intended for DMs, which are the smaller portion of players. Not to mention that the more experienced ones tend to use homebrew campaigns. That also applies to setting books.
So you need to target the players. And what kind of book will attract them? You got it - new character options.
A couple years later you have Player's Handbook 7, introducing new races (the Carrion Crawler, the Mustached Elves and the Sentient Boulder) and the Anachronistic power source with these exciting new classes: the Czar, the Mystic Dentist and the Planeswimmer. But that's not all! A couple of months after that, there's Anachronistic Power, with over 150 new feats, paragon paths and epic destinies.
Needless to say, by that point your system will be broken. Either that or all those new options will be painfully redundant and unnecessary. 4e managed to do both things.
By that point, you're better off rebooting the game. This cycle takes about 5 years. But for Wizards, that's okay, because the average player doesn't invest much more than that in the hobby.
That's at $20 to $25 per book (I'll err on the side of generosity here- some of them were more).
How I wish I could have paid $20-$25 for my books... Here in oz $55-$70 per hardback $25-$35 for 3rd party paperbacks. But the is nothing more satisfying than beating an unruly player with the hardback dmg.
As for pathfinder. It's a different company and really shouldn't figure in any of these otherwise you may as well add GURPS to the list.
I always thought AD&D *was* second edition, because I also knew about the original "basic" D&D.
Basic D&D and Advanced D&D were separate product lines. Actually, Basic D&D was supported all the way until 3E was released. One of the last books to be released was the Rules Cyclopedia, and that was as recently as 1999 or so.
And on the Basic D&D line, you also got a few different versions of the game, by different writers. It can get a little confusing.
@LadyRhian sorry the pathfinder comment was more about it being e3.75. it uses the d20 system but may as well be 3rd party in regards to rule sets given in the poll.
Discovered D&D with BG, no kidding. Got interested in playing when there was 3.0 out there and I felt it was already a great tool, with its own limitations. So I started playing and DM-ing in 3.0. When 3.5 came out, I jumped at it and made my own small modifications to the version. When 4.0 came out, I was kinda: what the heck, you released 3.5 only last year? There was a weird period in which WotC was selling the new 4.0 player's handbook and DM guide, while still printing 3.5 manuals. I immediately felt the community wouldn't accept the change so easily, even more so if you gave them such a puzzling behavior. Personally, I've never played 4.0 and onward, I just felt disgusted by WotC because I spent money to buy their manuals (yes, I bought at least 10 3.0-3.5 manuals) and then they came up with a completely different version, different rules and classes... By the look of the poll (0% 4.0 and 4.5) it seems I was not the only one out there to feel the same. I felt there was a need to change some things, like the deities: there simply were too many. But 4.0 and 4.5 were essentially not necessary, in my opinion. They (WotC) already had a great product, but they made changes in a milk-the-cow-while-it-lasts kind of way. Bad move. Looking forward to the 5th edition, hoping against hope that they'll go back to the d20 3.5-based rules. Storyline-wise, I do hope they'll get it over with, with Mystra's death and lack/unreliability of spells and such. m2c
@Jolanthus Didn't it start from the Pathfinder adventures in Dungeon Magazine? I didn't really count Pathfinder in the edition wars, either. 3e, 3.5e, 4e and now D&D Next are 4 editions in 14 years (2000 to 2014, when D&D Next is to be published) as opposed to 2 editions (1e and 2e) lasting 23 years. I know which one(s) I choose!
@LadyRhian I remember when my older brother gave me his 1983 hardcover 1st edition PHB (with Jeff Easley's cover artwork), followed by the DMG and MM. That was enough to either play or DM back then, dag-nabbit! I did find UA, MM2, and the Survival Guides to be nice additions to the existing rules (I also managed to find an original copy of Fiend Folio as well). Because I'm a fan of magic-users/mages/wizards, I bought 2nd edition's Complete Wizard's Handbook and Complete Book of Necromancers later on and incorporated them into the 1st and "1.5" editions I was already using. I remember having a lot of fun.
51 sourcebooks in 3rd edition? That is definitely micromanagement at its worst. More is not always better.
@Martianna 51 hardcover sourcebooks in 7 years, just for the basic game! Like I said, not including the Forgotten Realms stuff, and not including the softcover books (like the Song and the Silence). It was like they said, "People getting tired of the game? Let's release another sourcebook with MOAR options!" 2e had a ton of sourcebooks, too, but they were released over a longer period and have more crunch and less fluff. (kits are fluff to me, not crunch, much like prestige classes).
And I have stuff from 3rd party developers, too, like The Book of Erotic Fantasy (yes, I am one of the people who bought that sourcebook, along with the softcover "Naughty and Dice"), and 2e tended more to the boxed sets for expansions rather than hardcover books. Arguably, there is more in a boxed set than a hardcover book (adventures along with game crunch, for example). I own 35 boxed sets for 2e, everything from Al-Quadim's "Assassin Mountain" to "Kara-Tur", "A Player's Primer to the Outlands" to the Ravenloft Adventure "A Light in the Belfry" and the Mystara Adventures "Hail to the Heroes" and "Night of the Vampire", which included CDs with music, sound effects and read text (also Red Steel and Savage Baronies for the Mystara setting, which included CDs with only music for the setting to set the mood). I also have the 25th Anniversary boxed set, which includes the Mono-colored editions of Tomb of Horrors, The Giants Modules, and L3, the never-otherwise published adventure set in the Lendor Isles after L1 Bone Hill and L2 Assassin's Knot. L3 is Dwarven Deep Delve, and that was the only way to get the adventure, and I had to buy my copy from England, and it was shipped on a Container Ship. I thought I was never going to get it, it took a month and a half to reach me.
I also have "Mark of Amber", another CD Adventure set in Averoigne, which I think is in the "Known Lands" setting with Alphatia. It's been a while and I might be misremembering, though.
Here's the problem in a nutshell:A couple years later you have Player's Handbook 7, introducing new races (the Carrion Crawler, the Mustached Elves and the Sentient Boulder) and the Anachronistic power source with these exciting new classes: the Czar, the Mystic Dentist and the Planeswimmer.
Rofl @Kilivitz. I always wondered what was missing from 2e: the mustached elf/mystic dentist race/class combo!
Basic/Expert D&D should've been in the poll, since it specifically says D&D/AD&D. There were some really good adventures and settings there. Some limitations as well (your race basically *was* your class, and your alignment was limited to lawful, neutral or chaotic - read as good, neutral or evil). But Mystara was a great world with a lot of thought put into it, along the lines of the Forgotten Realms.
@Miloch I started playing D&D on the boxed sets before moving onto 1st edition AD&D. You're right, there were a lot of great adventures and it was about playing the game and not about having the most unique and perfect character.
I would have included original D&D, but the polls are limited to only 10 answer options.
My dad often wonders about what ever happened to fighters who just hit stuff. But people want more out of their warriors now. We have the lightly armoured fighters who dash about, we have heavyly armoured warriors who stand in the doorway as a read guard while their companions run to safety. e3 &.5 give you the mechanics to back up your roleplay options.
How many people would play a fighter with these stats? Str 13, Dex 20, Con 15, Int 17, Wis 17, Cha 14
Not many. I mean really, who would play a fighter where their strength is their weakest stat? There are people who complain that Khalid is a poor fighter with his 15 strength.
Thief, Mage Cleric are the first options I'd suggest. but I'd be wrong.
@Jolanthus I think it would be more likely that someone would play a fighter with those stats (I would) than a mage with 13 Int, a cleric with 13 Wis, or a thief with 13 Dex. I think it would depend on what edition you were playing as well.
Comments
It works out about the same. Fighters progress in those types of feats faster than any other class, so that's the draw of that class as opposed to paladin or ranger.
Magic works similar. Divine spells were altered to be on a similar path as arcane magic, as in both get up to 9th level spells. That's the only major difference, really.
2e is my favorite edition, but I also have a soft spot for Gygax's 1e. I can see why 3e had to come around, but when you start implementing all those supplements, it gets even worse than AD&D supposedly got. I'm sure most people will disagree, though. Also, my preference for AD&D is sort of influenced by BG.
As far as I'm concerned there has never been a fourth edition. I remember buying a game back in 2008 that vaguely resembled D&D, though. I'm sure a lot of people like it, but it wasn't my cup of tea.
And the aesthetic of the game as a whole didn't please me as well. That Sorcerer image kicked my suspension of disbelief in the crotch as I wondered why would anyone wear anything with that many buckles. No wonder he was a Sorcerer - no Mage (oh, sorry - Wizard. Bah) could manage to study/memorize spells and get on and off that outfit while managing to sleep 8 hours a day on an adventure.
I'm not saying D&D necessarily needs to be "Tolkienesque", but the default setting was too anime for my tastes. Ironically, 4e toned that down but on the other hand managed to make the whole game more like Exalted than any other version.
But what am I saying? There was no fourth edition.
In my "book," there's the Thief class with two subclasses: Assassin and Thief-Acrobat. "Rogue" places a value judgment on the class. Not all thieves are scoundrels. "Thief" defines what the class does, as do the subclasses.
Long live 1st through 2nd edition.
3e did away with that and tried to make every class more distinct from one another, thus turning Thieves into "generic" Rogues. Nothing wrong with that, but it was the beginning of a process that culminated with me filing for divorce with 3e due to irreconcilable differences, if you'll excuse the horrible analogy.
But since I've already started it, it's worth mentioning that in that context, 4e was a one night stand I'd rather forget about.
I wish someone would make it a kit for BG. If wizards get sorcerers, clerics should get a bit of spontaneous love.
And I have to say, I don't consider Unearthed Arcana 1.5e. Or the "Skills and Powers" and similar books to be 2.5e. It was only 3e that had a real 3.5e (they even printed books with this on the cover!) which is just one reason I think 3e hastened the death of D&D. Too many editions in too short a time. (Pathfinder being 3.75 is ridiculous, too.) People have limited money, and sometimes I think that redoing the game and printing new books is a way for the company to assure themselves more money, because then you have to buy all the new books, which costs a substantial sum of money. So the faster they can churn out shiny new editions, the more money they can make. I realize this sounds jaded, but can you blame me?
1e lasted 12 years, from the publication of the first hardcover book in 1977, until the 2nd edition books started publishing in 1989. 2e lasted 11 years, from 1989 until 2000, when 3e books were published. That's 23 years with 2 editions. 3e lasted 3 years, as the 3.5e books were published in 2003. 3.5 lasted 4 years, with new books being published in 2007 (and planning for this edition began in 2005- a mere 2 years after the new books were published!). Now they are planning for D&D Next, which is supposed to publish in 2014... making 4 new editions in a mere 14 years (12 if you assume that a new edition starts with the planning of D&D Next). The speed of these new editions makes me think they were horrible- you don't change something that fast if it's good.
Part of the reason I resent 3e is "too many goddamn sourcebooks". I just did a count of the ones I have for 3e (and I am including 3.5e in that). Now, this is just for the basic game... I'm not including the stuff for 3e Forgotten Realms, which is even more. 51! 51 effing sourcebooks. And this is only the hardcover stuff. That's at $20 to $25 per book (I'll err on the side of generosity here- some of them were more). That is over $1300 just in sourcebooks, assuming you bought them off the shelf and not from Ebay or a secondhand store. And not counting the Adventure books like "Expedition to the Demonweb Pits" or "Expedition to the Tomb of Horrors" or the third party books like "Legends and Lairs: City Works" Or "Legends and Lairs: Mythic Races" books I have.
Edition Fatigue. I has it.
That means that I answered the poll wrong. I should have said that 1st edition was my favorite.
After buying the core books, you could play D&D for the rest of your life without buying a single supplement. This isn't good for Wizards of the Coast, specially because they are under Hasbro, and the people there aren't interested in keeping brands that don't bring any profit (or, worse, cause them to lose money). So you can see why they are compelled to keep putting out sourcebooks.
Now, what kind of sourcebook will guarantee good sales? Adventures don't sell that well - they are intended for DMs, which are the smaller portion of players. Not to mention that the more experienced ones tend to use homebrew campaigns. That also applies to setting books.
So you need to target the players. And what kind of book will attract them? You got it - new character options.
A couple years later you have Player's Handbook 7, introducing new races (the Carrion Crawler, the Mustached Elves and the Sentient Boulder) and the Anachronistic power source with these exciting new classes: the Czar, the Mystic Dentist and the Planeswimmer. But that's not all! A couple of months after that, there's Anachronistic Power, with over 150 new feats, paragon paths and epic destinies.
Needless to say, by that point your system will be broken. Either that or all those new options will be painfully redundant and unnecessary. 4e managed to do both things.
By that point, you're better off rebooting the game. This cycle takes about 5 years. But for Wizards, that's okay, because the average player doesn't invest much more than that in the hobby.
As for pathfinder. It's a different company and really shouldn't figure in any of these otherwise you may as well add GURPS to the list.
And on the Basic D&D line, you also got a few different versions of the game, by different writers. It can get a little confusing.
By the look of the poll (0% 4.0 and 4.5) it seems I was not the only one out there to feel the same. I felt there was a need to change some things, like the deities: there simply were too many. But 4.0 and 4.5 were essentially not necessary, in my opinion. They (WotC) already had a great product, but they made changes in a milk-the-cow-while-it-lasts kind of way. Bad move. Looking forward to the 5th edition, hoping against hope that they'll go back to the d20 3.5-based rules.
Storyline-wise, I do hope they'll get it over with, with Mystra's death and lack/unreliability of spells and such.
m2c
51 sourcebooks in 3rd edition? That is definitely micromanagement at its worst. More is not always better.
And I have stuff from 3rd party developers, too, like The Book of Erotic Fantasy (yes, I am one of the people who bought that sourcebook, along with the softcover "Naughty and Dice"), and 2e tended more to the boxed sets for expansions rather than hardcover books. Arguably, there is more in a boxed set than a hardcover book (adventures along with game crunch, for example). I own 35 boxed sets for 2e, everything from Al-Quadim's "Assassin Mountain" to "Kara-Tur", "A Player's Primer to the Outlands" to the Ravenloft Adventure "A Light in the Belfry" and the Mystara Adventures "Hail to the Heroes" and "Night of the Vampire", which included CDs with music, sound effects and read text (also Red Steel and Savage Baronies for the Mystara setting, which included CDs with only music for the setting to set the mood). I also have the 25th Anniversary boxed set, which includes the Mono-colored editions of Tomb of Horrors, The Giants Modules, and L3, the never-otherwise published adventure set in the Lendor Isles after L1 Bone Hill and L2 Assassin's Knot. L3 is Dwarven Deep Delve, and that was the only way to get the adventure, and I had to buy my copy from England, and it was shipped on a Container Ship. I thought I was never going to get it, it took a month and a half to reach me.
I also have "Mark of Amber", another CD Adventure set in Averoigne, which I think is in the "Known Lands" setting with Alphatia. It's been a while and I might be misremembering, though.
Basic/Expert D&D should've been in the poll, since it specifically says D&D/AD&D. There were some really good adventures and settings there. Some limitations as well (your race basically *was* your class, and your alignment was limited to lawful, neutral or chaotic - read as good, neutral or evil). But Mystara was a great world with a lot of thought put into it, along the lines of the Forgotten Realms.
I would have included original D&D, but the polls are limited to only 10 answer options.
How many people would play a fighter with these stats?
Str 13, Dex 20, Con 15, Int 17, Wis 17, Cha 14
Not many. I mean really, who would play a fighter where their strength is their weakest stat? There are people who complain that Khalid is a poor fighter with his 15 strength.
Thief, Mage Cleric are the first options I'd suggest. but I'd be wrong.