Discontinuity: 3e and D&D

[Belen]

I agree with the initial premise. It is an entirely new game in both mechanics and flavor. Mechanics really do influence the flavor of the game and the designers did not put much thought into anything more than a dry textbook.

I still prefer the mechanics of 3e, but much of the sense of wonder has been hauled out back and buried in a shallow grave.

Not that you cannot have that sense of wonder in a 3e game, just that it requires a great deal of conscious thought and effort on the part of a GM.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Ah, but you didn't come back to D&D. You starting playing d20 Fantasy. Now most are playing d20 Fantasy, 2nd Edition.

Look at it however you want. I play D&D 3.5. Sure, it's a different system, but all the sacred cows are there that has always made D&D what it is. 3.5 has classes, the classic races, owlbears, beholders, spells like magic missile and wall of force, illithids, and so on. The packaging and presentation may be different, but it's still D&D to me...just a MUCH better version of it.

 

[JoeGKushner]

actually my advice to learn it as a new game was due to the fact that a lot of the older edition material is in the newer editions.

feats existed.

skills existed

AoO existed

and so on.

the problem and why i suggested learning the system as something new. has to due with the changes. those who are intimate with the older editions will only get themselves all bullocks up by the fact that some of the changes on the surface appear small. but in play they can make or break a decision or way or approach to roleplay/solving a problem...etc...

Feats, skills and AoO were in previous editions? Man, I must've been playing a different version of AD&D 1st, 2nd, and basic than you. Is this an April Fool's bit or am I just not remembering things correctly? I remember kits being added latter that were meant for characters at creation and I recall the bard in 1st ed was more like a Prc with it's weird requirements and the diffeent level cap on characters but definatly not feats and outside of the table in the DMG with optional skills that had no real rules to them, no skills. (Well, Wilderness Survival Guide did have Nonweapon Proficinecies...)

 

[Kanegrundar]

I still prefer the mechanics of 3e, but much of the sense of wonder has been hauled out back and buried in a shallow grave.

What? The sense of wonder in any game in brought out by the DM. My group and I have had no trouble having a great time with 3.5. We focus on having a good time instead of argueing and complaining about the silly issues and inconsistencies like we used to do with earlier editions. I don't see how the new edition took away any sense of wonder.

Kane

 

[diaglo]

Feats, skills and AoO were in previous editions? Man, I must've been playing a different version of AD&D 1st, 2nd, and basic than you. Is this an April Fool's bit or am I just not remembering things correctly? I remember kits being added latter that were meant for characters at creation and I recall the bard in 1st ed was more like a Prc with it's weird requirements and the diffeent level cap on characters but definatly not feats and outside of the table in the DMG with optional skills that had no real rules to them, no skills. (Well, Wilderness Survival Guide did have Nonweapon Proficinecies...)

yup, they were.

Chainmail had AoO esp with missile weapons and weapons with reach like pole arms.


not all feats... but some of them obviously were class specific. like scribe scroll. brew potion. unarmed weapon damage by monks.

skills too were in older editions. tracking is a feat... but uses a skill to determine success in the newer editions. in older editions it had success or failure too.

 

[Staffan]

Feats, skills and AoO were in previous editions? Man, I must've been playing a different version of AD&D 1st, 2nd, and basic than you.

Very similar things were around, at least. Feats are basically weapon proficiencies, especially with the expansions of their application in Complete Fighter's Handbook (fighting styles) and later Combat & Tactics - though some feats are more like non-weapon proficiencies (e.g. blind-fighting was an NWP). Skills... 2e had non-weapon proficiencies, which filled much the same role (although in a more binary fashion - they didn't scale well with levels). Attacks of opportunity were introduced in Combat & Tactics as well, and certain aspects of it were included in "basic" 2e (IIRC, you got a free attack on anyone who tried to make an unarmed attack against you if you were armed yourself).

 

[Krieg]

.../snip/...they thought that it implied that 3e was 'not D&D'.../snip/...

I don't know why they would be upset as that implication is entirely correct.

Dur, uh... ya think?

Almost got soda out the nose on that one!

 

[Akrasia]

This thread has nothing to do with C&C. That would be a different thread.

My interest in posting this has only to clarify the fact that 3e is (IMO) a fundamentally different game -- in both theory and practice -- than pre-3e versions of D&D.

I tire of people saying that it is the same game because it still has levels and orcs. By that logic, so are many other games -- from 1975 (e.g. T&T). Whether the game is better or worse is completely moot.

 

[Gomez]

Player: "Hey are we playing D&D tonight?"

GM*: "Yes and no. We are playing but not D&D."

Player: "Oh man! What happened? Why aren't we playing your game tonight? My Wizard was just about to level up."

GM: "We are still playing my game but it's not D&D."

Player: "What?? I don't understand. We have been playing in your game for a couple of years now."

GM: "Well I just found out that we are really playing d20 Fantasy and not Dungeons & Dragons 3.5. Some rules mix up. To play D&D we would have to be using the 1st Edition rules. That is the only true D&D. Everything that came after is different."

Player: "Oh man! That’s a bummer! I really liked you D&D game."


* Note I am using Game Master instead of Dungeon Master. You are only a Dungeon Master if you use 1st Edition D&D rules.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Without championing one version D&D over another, I will say that I think it's a shame that the system is pretty much fundamentally sundered from the D&D systems that came before.

Up until that point, it was pretty much possible to use materials from OD&D, AD&D, and AD&D 2nd edition together, without much, if any, consternation.