1e/3e Epiphany

[EricNoah]

Actually I wouldn't say that the FRCS is getting a revised edition; rather, there's a "companion product" (my words based on what I think the product will be like) coming called Player's Guide to Faerun. Whether this will have updated 3.5 stuff, or mostly new stuff, or a combination, remains to be seen. And just because they're releasing this conversion guide doesn't mean they won't release other conversion guides for, say, Magic of Faerun.

Some splatbook stuff made it into the core 3.5 books. Other splatbook stuff appears to be headed for the new "complete" guides (Complete Warrior, for example).

 

[Darrin Drader]

Oh please don't bring up a possible 4.0. It just makes my head hurt.

And as you may know, I'm with WotC... and it still makes my head hurt.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Maybe the new FRCS (is there really going to be a new one?) will come with it's own conversion document.

 

[BryonD]

When I switched from 1e to 2e I could tell I was playing a new version of the game.

When I switched from 2e to 3e I could GREATLY tell I was playing a new version of the game.

When I switched from 3e to 3.5 I felt like I was playing the exact same game.

Obviously there have been numerous specific occurances during play where the switch was apparant. But there has already been a slow steady creep of errata, new supplements and house rules over the last three years. 3.5 has been no more a new edition than the addition of rules from FRCS was a new edition.

Henry, I look at your list and I see you equating removed races and classes on the one hand to tweaked mechanics on the other. I don't see the equality.

eric noah
I gotta say ... the more I'm sitting here reading the 3.5 books, the less it seems all that different than 3.0. I could go either way with my groups and probably do just fine.

That is the way I saw it. I started expected minimal changes. Then was suprised by the quantity of changes. Then I got the chance to really go over the changes and look at them in context and swung back to beign convinced that ti really was not a big deal.

psion
The difference being that the changes from 1e->2e were needed (though it didn't do near enough.) All too many of the changes we are seeing now seem to be much less justified, IMO.

To each there own. I disagree. I think they went overboard in a few places. But everyone has there own idea of perfection. I had house rules before, I'll have them after. That's all fine by me.

I disagree. "spell points" and similar mechanics are highly overrated, IMO, and spell slots maintain balance without lots of complex accounting in a way that most other systems can only dream of.

Agree 100% there.

 

[the Jester]

Wait- no notes in the conversion manual for Oriental Adventures?

 

[William Ronald]

Baraendur wrote:

Oh please don't bring up a possible 4.0. It just makes my head hurt.

And as you may know, I'm with WotC... and it still makes my head hurt.

Any talk of 4.0 at this point is probably NOT a good idea. I suspect that any serious talk of a new edition in the next few years would probably make the 3.0/3.5 flame fest look like a candle next to a bonfire.

I think the changes are not quite a new edition. I have some concerns, but I am willing to give 3.5 a try.

I agree with rounser that the existence of archetypes is crucial for the game. I can at least talk to a player anywhere in the world and use the word wizard and we both have a fair idea of the basic concept. A pure skills based system could dilute this, unless classes were shown as a preeminent way of creating characters.

Bookkeeping should be kept to a minimum as it gets in the way of the fun of gaming. I think we should remember rules are just tools to make a game playable. The goal should be to have fun, not to spend hours creating a character.

 

[johnsemlak]

I think the 1E-2E analogy is close, but still stretching a bit. We're not seeing major elements eliminated in this revision. I think the revision of OD&D to the first Basic Set (Holmes), or the later Basic Set revisions are better parallels -- clearer, simpler mechanics, a number of minor tweaks in a lot of places, but generally recognizable and playable as the same game (you could mix rulebooks without too much difficulty).

When 4E comes along, they're welcome to do anything they want as long as they keep the elements that make D&D D&D. To me that includes:

- Fantasy adventuring centerpiecing dungeon exploration, overcoming fierce monsters to get great and mystical treasures.
- Race, class, and level-based mechanics
- HP (well, could be WP/VP) and AC -- ie, abstract combat system
- Vancian magic (fire & forget/spell slots, levels, etc)
- Stong archetypes in race/class organization

Hear Hear!

 

[rangerjohn]

Shadowx said

Thats sad to hear. Is your reason for quitting just a lack of enthusiasm for rpgs? Or is it based on problems with game systems and business practices?

I'm still having to evaluate the situation, but I think its the later , along with the most of the gaming community's responce to the changes, leading to the former. I have spent a 1,000 times more time arguing about the game, than playing the game lately. That just is not fun.

 

[Numion]

Funny thing though is that you could use 3.0 character in 3.5 game. Ditto for spells, monsters etc..

10 min / level means the same in both editions

DR 15/+3 works in 3.5 since people still have + weapons

Old rangers abilities work too - new ranger is different though

10x5 facing would work too, even though no 3.5 monsta has it

BAB and attack bonus means the same in both editions

3.0 solar stats work in a 3.5 game


I'm just trying to say that the basic rules concepts haven't changed.

 

[Thresher]

Forgive me if I sound like a noisy, pragmatic minority but Im a bit old and skeptical to really regard 3.5 edition as anything more than just a revenue raiser for Wotc. If you get something out of it and the money keeps the game alive and fun for someone out there then all's well and good.

Just at the moment its not exactly endearing itself to me, not sure if a lot of the changes where really necessary and they didnt look at much that I wanted changed, scaling armour classed vs BaB's and making the game fit together at the higher end (20+) as well as it does between the level 1-15's.
2nd edition became an acute dislike that eventually made me leave the D&D scene for about 6 years, just didnt like what it became. 3rd edition didnt seem any better after a year or so of playing it on and off, it still dosnt hold together real well in some areas and they seem to take away some of the things I liked and added a few I dont really care for. I also really dislike the lack of decent, well thought out and challenging modules for people. I play characters first, stats, abilities and classes are just a rough guidline for how I like to play that particular character, unfortunatly my characters seem to fall apart on contact with an enemy that mostly involves 'applying a template or 3' to make it 'challenging'.

In short, it isnt my cup of tea anymore and hit point attrition bores the crap out of me.

So the old characters Ive lugged around through all the editions go into to retirement for a bit longer, with any luck I'll come back and visit them again one day.

But its not all doom and gloom, I love the Star Wars D20 system and Im having a lot of fun there, theres also a couple of other game systems which are a bit more free-form and I enjoy running playing and writing material for (SLA Industries).
As for Swords and Sorcery adventure I'd recommend the Slaine D20 game highly as well, any GM needing a much needed break from bog-stock D&D I'd say give it a go.

Anyway, enough from me, adieu