|
Post by Bob (DM) on Jan 16, 2014 3:29:23 GMT -5
I was wondering what edition of D&D you guys are most familiar with and if you have any particular preferences among them. So I thought it might be kind of fun too talk about them, what you like or dislike, etc.
Myself I am VERY familiar with 2nd Edition and have a working knowledge of 3rd Edition (as presented in the d20 SRD). 2E is by far and away my preferred rule set, mostly due to my familiarity with it. I am totally unfamiliar with 4th edition, I did read through some of it but mostly it just didn't make much sense to me (an old dogs & new tricks issue perhaps?)
There is quite a lot about 3rd edition I really like, particularly the attack/saving throw rules (I am not sorry to see the backside of THAC0s), and I like the NPC classes a lot as well. I also kind of like the class rules, allowing you to add classes, though it still kind of bothers me that you can just pick up the ability to cast spells or learn thievery on such short notice. I also like the range band idea rather than the 2E Short/Medium/Long thing.
I'm not really a fan of the skills & feats though. I much prefer the Proficiency system of 2E as it is more granular, allowing for a more fine tuned skill set (especially if you have been collecting NWP descriptions from the Web for a decade or two) and I find a lot of the Feats to be kind of silly - especially the names!!!!
As far as magic goes, well there isn't really too much of a difference, I find that it's mostly a change in nomenclature, though I really do like the extra Domain spell idea for priests - that rocks.
When it comes to the classes, well I have no time at all for the Prestige Classes, I find them as silly as the specialized kits from the old PHBR booklets. To my mind that sort of thing is best handled through role playing. I'm the same way with the Barbarian class - I dumped that when it first came out in 1st edition.
|
|
|
Post by Tanaka Kozo -Tnk (Tristan) on Jan 16, 2014 4:08:07 GMT -5
1,2 & 3.
I quiet like 3e as it simplified the rules details from 2e and made it possible to spend more time on the "role" aspect of the game rather than referencing charts and tables from umpteen different books.
As far as variations of 3e I like the Pathfinder rules set as it corrected most of the glaring exploits from base 3e.
|
|
|
Post by Bob (DM) on Jan 16, 2014 6:38:07 GMT -5
I'm not familiar with that particular set of rules, I'll have to take a look at them. And you are right about the endless numbers of books and supplements. What a fucking pain - and expense!
I'm becoming more partial to 3e, I've incorporated a good bit of it into the abominable conglomeration of different editions and games that passes for the house rules for my pen & paper games. I steal ideas and subsystems freely and force them kicking and screaming into our games.
For example, the supply rules I use for armies are mostly drawn from an Avalon Hill board game shoe-horned into the RoE supply rules.
|
|
|
Post by Oshiro Yasuo - Osh (Tudor) on Jan 16, 2014 7:26:45 GMT -5
My first contact with D&D was with the 3rd edition, so I'm biased to it.
In my country the box sets of AD&D were to expensive to a bunch of kids buy it, so we played a local similar game.
|
|
|
Post by Bob (DM) on Jan 16, 2014 8:12:04 GMT -5
Really? What game was it?
|
|
|
Post by Oshiro Yasuo - Osh (Tudor) on Jan 16, 2014 8:30:37 GMT -5
Tagmar, it was a short lived game, but the fans created a new version online (http://www.tagmar2.com.br/) like the birthright.net
|
|
|
Post by Bob (DM) on Jan 16, 2014 8:41:27 GMT -5
Cool. Unfortunately my Portuguese is non-existent and I doubt Google would be up to the task.
|
|
|
Post by Bob (DM) on Jan 16, 2014 8:43:46 GMT -5
Is there any parts that were particularly cool?
|
|
|
Post by Valdemarstor on Jan 16, 2014 9:23:46 GMT -5
Familiar with 1E, 2E, and 3E in inverse order to their release (I am most familiar with 3E). I prefer 3E but I don't think it makes a big difference in the context of Birthright.
|
|
|
Post by Bob (DM) on Jan 16, 2014 11:08:52 GMT -5
No, not really, other than which skills/NWPs might affect some actions it really wouldn't have much impact. Though it could get kind of weird in an adventure if one character is 2E and another 3E. Like I said, I just thought it might be kind of fun to pick the various versions apart a little. I am an incurable rules tinkerer and I enjoy that sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by Valdemarstor on Jan 16, 2014 11:39:59 GMT -5
By inclination, I am too, but I never have the time to fully pursue my RPG desires.
One example:
Earlier this year, I embarked on a domain management system that attempted to combine "the best" (admittedly, a subjective assessment) from Birthright, Paizo's Kingmaker, the Civilization series of video games, and a smattering of other less well-known games, systems, and products. My last draft was nowhere near complete at forty-odd pages. Sadly, I completed the Italian military school I was attending and my work over the summer was far too intense to permit tinkering around with the "proper" rates of population growth, the right way to mechanically represent taxation, and such minutiae.
Alas, now I'm in an American grad school and my second daughter is on the way. Between academics, family, this, and the TOR campaign I'm running, I don't think I'll return to my domain management system any time soon!
|
|
|
Post by Ao no Wushi - AoW (Joe) on Jan 16, 2014 12:04:30 GMT -5
I'd stay away from 1st, 2nd edition is good, as its the rules BR was written for, but you've indicated you want to run Ruins of Empire(Bjorn's game) rules, which is based around 3E. I'd consider carefully if its worth changing any rules, considering the staggering complexity of Bjorn's rules compared to the basic(and flawed) 2E game rules of Birthright.
|
|
|
Post by Bob (DM) on Jan 16, 2014 13:42:45 GMT -5
In actuality the ruleset used for sub-domain level play has no real effect on the RoE rules, I've been playing by the RoE rules using 2E characters and monsters for about 2 years now and it works perfectly. Like Valdemarstor said, it doesn't really have any impact.
That being said, it was my intent to let people create their characters using 3E, as I assumed it would be what most people were accustomed to, and there's no real need to set out every detail of one's character (I mean, come on, it's safe to assume that you have access to enough horses, arrows, mules, large sacks, wineskins, etc. as you might need, right?) so it really doesn't matter.
The only issue is that I think in 2E terms, so when creating an NPC I think of the 2E character I want and then figure out how to make that using the 3E rules, which is surprisingly easy to do. To set out the amount of detail needed for a BR NPC takes about 15-20 minutes at most, and even less if you use a customizable templates.
|
|
|
Post by Ao no Wushi - AoW (Joe) on Jan 16, 2014 15:03:40 GMT -5
I like 2E better, generally. Less munchkiny.
|
|
|
Post by dyring on Jan 16, 2014 15:36:40 GMT -5
Havent played ad&d much, just pbems and computer games really. My pen and paper days where mostly world of darkness, with a splattering of mutant and middle earth.
I´v most seen second and third. In general, i prefer third even if there are some exceptions.
One of the best changes was implementing the 1 extra attack/5 increases in to hit. And also the changes with Thac0 calculation.
|
|