I have a problem: I need arguments!!

[diaglo]

(except for 1e clerics).

i think you meant 1e druid

 

[Voadam]

i think you meant 1e druid

I know a 1e cleric with an 18 wisdom started off with something like 3 1st level spells and at 3rd level he would have a bunch of seconds as well, while the MU would have only 2 first and 1 second at 3rd, unless he had a 9 int in which case he'd only have the firsts.

I don't remember the druid spell chart or if they got spells from high wisdom.

 

[diaglo]

I know a 1e cleric with an 18 wisdom started off with something like 3 1st level spells and at 3rd level he would have a bunch of seconds as well, while the MU would have only 2 first and 1 second at 3rd, unless he had a 9 int in which case he'd only have the firsts.

I don't remember the druid spell chart or if they got spells from high wisdom.

not so much number of spells, but power. they got access to higher lvl spells earlier.

 

[Mercule]

The biggest mental hurdle I had to overcome when switching from 1e/2e to 3e was the notion that ability scores no longer have to be ridiculously high to have a meaningful effect on the game. An ability score of 12 is now decent, and 14 is good. This was not the case in 1e/2e.

This was one of the key things that sold me an 3E. Even so, when we created character the first time, the stats were still a bit on the high side. So much so that in a couple of months, the players all agreed to lower their stats to the equivalent of a 32-point buy.

 

[Mercule]

The skill system is not, in all ways, an improvement, since the newly introduced "cap" on skills tends to force the issue: Characters are now constrained to suck horribly at low levels by virtue of this cap, unable to plow skillpoints into a single field of specialty to achieve competence in it before trying to branch out.

So, what you're saying is that lower level characters are not as good at doing things as higher level characters. I fail to see how this is a bad thing in a level-based game.

If you want to be some sort of wunderkind, it's still possible. You look for skill synergies and feats that boost a particular skill (say, Athletic and Focus: Jump). Even at 3rd level, a non-human, non-fighter (say half-orc barbarian) character who focused in that area could have a +16 in something (in this case Jump). Higher if there were skill synergies involved (if he were a Rogue, it could be a +18 with Tumble synergy, not sure of any more). That definitely doesn't qualify as a character who "sucks" at something.

Personally, I think that the 2E NWP mechanics were horrible. There weren't enough of them to really customize a character and you went from incompetent to near-perfect practically overnight. There was no reason to spend more than one NWP in any single skill because it returned a significant, almost negligible return on investment compared to buying a new skill (a +1 vs., essentially, a +10 to +18, depending on specifics).

In 1E, you couldn't customize your skills at all. In 2E, only the Thief could, and considering the Thief was usually pretty limited in play as time went on, I don't think being able to turn him into a one trick pony is something I'd be bragging about.

 

[Storm Raven]

An L3 character of 3E is an underdeveloped newbie: Most of his feat chains haven't paid off into anything useful yet....in fact, unless you're a human, fighter, or both, you have a whopping *TWO* of these things.

Unless you are a wizard, a cleric with one of several domains that grant feats, a ranger, a monk . . .