Explaining 3.5 to a 2nd Edition Veteran

[Elder-Basilisk]

There are two things nobody has mentioned yet:

1. All of the abilities work the same. An 18 dexterity is a +4 bonus--just like an 18 strength. A 14 charisma grants a +2 bonus--just like a 14 wisdom.

2. Pretty much every little difference in ability score will make a difference. A character with a 14 con gets two more hp/level than a character with a 10 con. A character with a 16 strength gets +3 to hit and damage--only one less than the character with the 18 strength. In 2e, a character with a 15 strength, 14 dex, and 14 con would be about the same as a character with a 10 strength, 9 dex, and 9 con. Not anymore.

3. Because of this, you don't need to have at least one 17 or 18 in order to be impressive. In fact, the baseline fighter is that 15 str, 14 dex, 14 con guy I described previously.

 

[Akrasia]

Sorry, my comment was not aimed at you or your post, I've learned not to discuss 3e with certain member of this forum.

As far as I can tell, none of the posters who recommended that when teaching 3e to someone who has experience with pre-3e D&D it can make sense to tell that person to "approach it as a new game" was 'bashing' 3e. (E.g. Crothian is hardly a 3e 'basher'.)

Your post clearly indicated that you thought that this advice involved 'bashing 3'. My post pointed out that this was simply incorrect.

I enjoy being a player in a 3e game with a good DM (but I dislike DMing it). The fact that I enjoy playing 3e does not prevent me from recognizing that it is a fundamentally different game than pre-3e D&D, and that it would be useful to take this approach when teaching the game to a new player.

As for your "not discussing 3e with certain members of this forum" quip, why even post your comment then? It makes no sense. You criticize people for 'bashing' 3e (even though in their comments they did no such thing), and then you claim to 'not discuss' 3e with such people.

 

[francisca]

I've recently welcomed 2 new players into my campaign. They've played D&D back in highschool, back in the days of 2nd edition. So I've been tasked with bringing them up to speed.

How would you explain 3.5 to such a person? What are the most fundamental changes that a player would need to be aware of? I'm not talking about the specifics of class abilities, spell durations, and the like. I'm talking about the core concepts that have been introduced/updated in the new edition.

Spider

Tell them to put preconceptions aside. Then hand them the PHB and give them at least a couple of days to digest it. Meet with them apart from the rest of the group and gen their characters. Run a few mock combats and exercise any non-combat skill checks you think will be needed in the upcoming session.

As long as they have half a brain, and are not being dragged kicking and screaming into 3e, they should pick it right up.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

As far as I can tell, none of the posters who recommended that when teaching 3e to someone who has experience with pre-3e D&D it can make sense to tell that person to "approach it as a new game" was 'bashing' 3e. (E.g. Crothian is hardly a 3e 'basher'.)

Really?

How's about:

d02 ain't D&D.

it only has the name.

Tell them to forget the name DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. It is d20 Fantasy now.

Best advice in this thread.

Now, maybe it's just me, but if "IT AIN'T D&D" ain't bashing, I don't know what is.

Your post clearly indicated that you thought that this advice involved 'bashing 3'. My post pointed out that this was simply incorrect.

You know, you have a habit of pointing out things that are simply incorrect even when they aren't. Stop that.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Really?
Now, maybe it's just me, but if "IT AIN'T D&D" ain't bashing, I don't know what is.
You know, you have a habit of pointing out things that are simply incorrect even when they aren't. Stop that.

With the exception of Diaglo they were not knocking 3e.

I would say the same thing - forget the 2nd ed. rules, start over. This is a better game. Not just 'different', better. Rules that make sense, rules that are constent, a single core system rather than a hodge-podge of high for this, low for that, percentiles for other things.

The Auld Grump, And Diaglo can't help it, he's... Diaglo.

 

[Campbell]

If you can manage it, I'd print off copies of the Atacks of Oppurtunity article on this site, to give to them.

 

[Akrasia]

Now, maybe it's just me, but if "IT AIN'T D&D" ain't bashing, I don't know what is.

It's just you.

Pointing out that 3e D&D is fundamentally different from pre-3e D&D is not a 'bash'. It is a simple fact.

GURPS is fundamentally different from OAD&D too (far more so than 3e D&D). Pointing this out to future GURPS players is not a 'bash' on the system.

You know, you have a habit of pointing out things that are simply incorrect even when they aren't.

This is simply incorrect.

 

[Akrasia]

... - forget the 2nd ed. rules, start over. This is a better game. Not just 'different', better. Rules that make sense, rules that are constent, a single core system rather than a hodge-podge of high for this, low for that, percentiles for other things.
...

I never played 2nd edition, so I will not comment on its merits relative to 3rd edition.

However, I do disagree with the blanket statement that 3e is 'better' than all earlier versions of D&D. 3e has certain virtues, as you point out. But so does, IMO, the Rules Cylcopedia version of D&D. The latter is much easier to prep, much faster to play, handles high level characters better IMO, and does not require minis and battlemats to run combats (a plus in my view).

The two games have different advantages and disadvantages. One may not appeal to you, but to make a blanket statement that 3e is better than all other versions is complete rubbish. 3e is better at certain things (detailed tactical combat, allowing players to individuate characters via feats and skills, etc.). It is quite bad at others (fast play, easy DM prep work, etc.).

That comment aside, I think one can give advice on introducing a new player to 3e without engaging in unnecessary 'edition bashing'.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It's just you.

Pointing out that 3e D&D is fundamentally different from pre-3e D&D is not a 'bash'. It is a simple fact.

Agreed. Pointing out that "IT AIN'T D&D NO MORE!!!eleven," however, is.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I never played 2nd edition, so I will not comment on its merits relative to 3rd edition.

However, I do disagree with the blanket statement that 3e is 'better' than all earlier versions of D&D. 3e has certain virtues, as you point out. But so does, IMO, the Rules Cylcopedia version of D&D. The latter is much easier to prep, much faster to play, handles high level characters better IMO, and does not require minis and battlemats to run combats (a plus in my view).

Heh, I didn't say 'all' versions of the game, I was referring specifically to 2nd ed. A lot of the same was true for 1st ed. (The game got better with each edition), but I actually liked the Rules Cyclopedia better than either 1st or 2nd eds of AD&D as well, so not quite as much of a blanket statement as you think. From an engineering viewpoint the core system of 3e is superior to AD&D, which had too many redundant systems, but in my estimation only a bit better than the Cyclopedia, which also had a relatively simple core mechanic (except for thieves). It could have used a bit more balance among the classes (people complain that the cleric is overpowered now, but in Cyclopedia they were really powerful), but was not a bad system.

2nd ed. in particular became very unbalanced at the end, kits were a good idea, but no one tried to keep them balanced against each other.

The Auld Grump