Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rogueattorney" data-source="post: 2135404" data-attributes="member: 17551">I explained the big two in my previous post - archetypes versus option in terms of character creation, and abstract versus tactical in terms of combat.  I'd consider those the big two.Of your similarities:Classes - While they're called classes in both rulesets, the class of the 3.5e is more like, say, the profession of CoC.  It's a template that allows for you to pick from a menu of skill, feats, and spells.Levels - In earlier versions levels were almost entirely subsumed within the class structure. (Human dual-classing being the exception, and that was more like starting over on a new class than the 3e 'tale a level'.)  In 3e a level, while not entirely independant of class, is outside the class structure.Alignments - no argumentFire and Forget Magic - no argument, although characters have a many, many more spells available to cast at lower levels than in earlier editions.  In 1e, a 1st level cleric might have 3 1st levels spells to cast, in 3e, it's what? 4 0th level and 4 1st levels.Armor Class - While called the same thing, AC in 3e models a slightly different aspect of the fight than it did in 1e.  AC in 1e took into account size, it doesn't in 3e.  Thus you get size modifiers in 3e when larger creatures are attacking smaller, and vice versa.Hit Points - again, hp model a slightly different aspect of the fight.  In 3e, according to the text, hit points model only the amount of physical damage that can be taken.  In 1e, they also model luck and skill.  This leads to slightly different rules interpretations throughout the system.  For example, in 1e, illusions do 'real' damage.  Lost hit points are actually lost as 'psychic damage'.9 levels of spells - Clerics, Illusionists, and Druids only had 7 levels of spells.  '0-level' spells also didn't exist except for the optional cantrip rules for m-u's in Unearthed Arcana, so actually 3e really has 10 levels of spells.Saving Throws - These are handled very differently.  In 1e they were reliant on the source - i.e. are you saving against Poison?  In 3e they are reliant on the defense - are you using your Will-power?  There were 5 saves in 1e, three in 3e.  Saves were almost always solely determined by the level of the defender in 1e (exceptions for +/- for certain Poisions, etc.).  In 3e, save probability factors in both the level of the defender and the level of the attacker.6 attributes: strength, intelligence, wisdom, dexterity, constitution, charisma...even if it orders them differently - agreedAll the same old monsters. Heck it even has the flail snail - the stats of many are significantly different, as are the concepts of templates and leveled monstersMagic Missile, Fireball, Ressurection - again spell descriptions are often significantly different, especially at lower levels, where many of the more powerful 1st and 2nd level spells of past editions are significantly changed, compare 3.5e Sleep and Charm Person to their 1e versions.You can call these nit-picks, but how many nit-picks need to exist before they all add up to being a new game?  The truth is that all fantasy role-playing games have some mechanism for pretty much all of the above.  A wizard can cast a fireball in nearly every FRPG.  The question is how the game handles the mechanics.  And 3e doesn't handle these mechanisms in a way that is any significantly closer to 1e than many other FRPG's.  Especially when you have, what you might call, first-generational derivitives like Hackmaster and C&C running around.  In a lot of ways, 3e is a second-generational derivitive, having been filtered through 2e first.  And in that respect it's about as far from 1e as the Palladium FRPG and Chaosium's BRP games.  I don't find it any easier converting 3e <> 1e than I do with Cthulhu Dark Ages, for example.Is there really any argument that after acquiring the rights to D&D, WotC radically redesigned the game?  They call it D&D.  They have the rights to D&D.  It's D&D.  However, it is really a different game from what used to go by the name of D&D.  Does that make it illegitimate?  No, stuff like that happens all the time.  But it does mean that a significant portion of those who liked the previous versions of the game won't like it.  It will also mean that a significant portion of those who didn't like the previous versions of the game will like it.  I know some like neither and some like both.  That's just the way personal taste works.R.A.</blockquote>

Verification