M&M2e: No HP!? What were they thinking?

[jdrakeh]

Complaining about that is akin to asking why there's not Arcana Unearthed (or is it Unearth Arcana?) options in the PHB.

Apples and oranges, Jim - Arcana Unearthed isn't a second edition of the D&D PHB, thus your analogy doesn't hold water. A more appropriate comparison would be if a 4th Edition (i.e., next edition) of the PHB came out and no longer contained rules for Hit Points. Then you'd have pretty much the same situation we have here - a new edition of a core rulebook that doesn't contain rules found in the previous edition.

I think that this was the OP's issue (mainly because they said as much several times), yet it has been ignored by most of the posters in this thread in favor of apples to oranges comparisions and strawmen designed to avoid it. Neither the lack of a d20 System logo on the M&M 2e core rulebook or comparisons like you made above have anything to do with the book not containing rules that were present in a previous edition.

As you point out, there's no reason why you can't simply use the 1e rules with the new edition, but this (again) begs the question "Why not just use the 1e rules?".

 

[Jim Hague]

Apples and oranges, Jim - Arcana Unearthed isn't a second edition of the D&D PHB, thus your analogy doesn't hold water. A more appropriate comparison would be if a 4th Edition (i.e., next edition) of the PHB came out and no longer contained rules for Hit Points. Then you'd have pretty much the same situation we have here - a new edition of a core rulebook that doesn't contain rules found in the previous edition.

I think that this was the OP's issue (mainly because they said as much several times), yet it has been ignored by most of the posters in this thread in favor of apples to oranges comparisions and strawmen designed to avoid it. Neither the lack of a d20 System logo on the M&M 2e core rulebook or comparisons like you made above have anything to do with the book not containing rules that were present in a previous edition.

A good point - what I'm trying to get at (and some other posters as well, I suspect) might be better illustrated by someone asking why they can't custom build a PC like they did in the D&D Rules Cyclopaedia (again, might be using the wrong book here) in 3e/3.5, save that the transition from MnM 1e to 2e is a lot less radical. Not aiming for apples and oranges here, more aiming for Macintosh apples versus Granny Smith or Pippin.

As you point out, there's no reason why you can't simply use the 1e rules with the new edition, but this (again) begs the question "Why not just use the 1e rules?".

Aha, this one I can give an unambiguous answer on! By all reports, and judging by my own reading of 2e, it's a lot smoother in terms of running things like combats, and most of the power system loopholes have been plugged.

 

[jdrakeh]

A good point - what I'm trying to get at (and some other posters as well, I suspect) might be better illustrated by someone asking why they can't custom build a PC like they did in the D&D Rules Cyclopaedia (again, might be using the wrong book here) in 3e/3.5, save that the transition from MnM 1e to 2e is a lot less radical. Not aiming for apples and oranges here, more aiming for Macintosh apples versus Granny Smith or Pippin.

I think that comparison is more on point, actually - it is a question of diffferent editions, not different products. Now, that said, a lot of people here (not you) have guffawed about how it is totally unreasonable to forsake the new edition of a product that does things differently than the old edition, based on personal taste. Rather, I think that the ''If you don't buy the new edition, there's obviously something wrong with you!" reaction exhibited on this thread is unreasonable (especially when precious few people have taken the time to support it with objective criteria).

That some people would rather stick with a system that they know and like, as opposed to learning what amounts to a new system, seems completely reasonable to me. Similarly, I don't see anything unreasonable about not buying a new edition of a product if the older edition better suits your personal tastes. I'm not so quick to indulge in the knee jerk crucifiction of people who aren't immediately sold on buying something new just because they can. If anything, I think that such people are pretty level-headed and could teach the typical hobbyisit a lot.

Aha, this one I can give an unambiguous answer on! By all reports, and judging by my own reading of 2e, it's a lot smoother in terms of running things like combats, and most of the power system loopholes have been plugged.

Sounds good. Can you point me to any unbiased reports (i.e, reports written by third-parties not affiliated with the product/company directly)?

 

[Jim Hague]

I think that comparison is more on point, actually - it is a question of diffferent editions, not different products. Now, that said, a lot of people here (not you) have guffawed about how it is totally unreasonable to forsake the new edition of a product that does things differently than the old edition, based on personal taste. Rather, I think that the ''If you don't buy the new edition, there's obviously something wrong with you!" reaction exhibited on this thread is unreasonable (especially when precious few people have taken the time to support it with objective criteria).

That some people would rather stick with a system that they know and like, as opposed to learning what amounts to a new system, seems completely reasonable to me. Similarly, I don't see anything unreasonable about not buying a new edition of a product if the older edition better suits your personal tastes. I'm not so quick to indulge in the knee jerk crucifiction of people who aren't immediately sold on buying something new just because they can. If anything, I think that such people are pretty level-headed and could teach the typical hobbyisit a lot.

I don't disagree at all. I left D&D because 2nd Edition/Advanced was something that was just torturous for me - what kind of save do I make, again? THAC0? Argh! When 3rd came out, it suited my tastes a lot more than previous editions, despite (IMO) having less interesting background material...something that 3rd party publishers dealt with. As a result, I've stuck with the d20 system as it's expanded - I picked up Spycraft 2.0 because it was everything good about the previous edition, plus some excellent content added, and I plan to pick up MnM 2e...but not until my 1e campaign wraps up. Buying rules just to have them (the New and Shiny! Effect) is something of a puzzlement to me.

Sounds good. Can you point me to any unbiased reports (i.e, reports written by third-parties not affiliated with the product/company directly)?

Here's a start, including a review by ENWorld's own Teflon Billy. I believe Arcady has a review out there, and there may be a few on RPG.Net, which I can't access from work.

http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?do=product&productid=146186

 

[buzz]

A more appropriate comparison would be if a 4th Edition (i.e., next edition) of the PHB came out and no longer contained rules for Hit Points.

This would make sense if M&M2e had left out the rules for the Damage/Toughness Save, i.e., an integral part of the rules used by the majority of players.

A more accurate comparison to this thread would be if D&D4e came out and, say, the option for softer crits and auto-misses was left out of the DMG and put into a new edition of Unearthed Arcana or the DMG2. That's roughly on par with what is being discussed here.

If someone were to then hop on ENWorld and complain that WotC had betrayed all the fans and personally screwed his group by doing this, I would not fault people for being just as incredulous and critical as they're being here.

M&M was evolutionary at the point in d20's development when it was released. Optional rules like hit points were included, we can assume, to ease people into new concepts like the damage save, i.e., give them a choice. Years have now gone by, the market has matured, and M&M fans have overwhelmingly demonstrated that they like the M&M way of doing things. Ergo, M&M2e can leave some of these artifacts behind and concentrate on being a better M&M... the M&M the designer and the fans want. That they even held on to various 1e rule options for the GM's book is pretty commendable, IMO.

 

[jdrakeh]

A more accurate comparison to this thread would be if D&D4e came out and, say, the option for softer crits and auto-misses was left out of the DMG and put into a new edition of Unearthed Arcana or the DMG2. That's roughly on par with what is being discussed here.

I think that is fair.

If someone were to then hop on ENWorld and complain that WotC had betrayed all the fans and personally screwed his group by doing this, I would not fault people for being just as incredulous and critical as they're being here.

The thing is, I haven't seen a post on this thread where anybody 'hopped on ENWorld and complained that Green Ronin had betrayed all the fans and personally screwed his group by doing this' - I read a post where somebody complained that one of their group members made this complaint, but that isn't the same thing. I do fault most of the posters in this thread for their reaction to that post (and really, anybody that extolls the virtue of buying new things purely because they're new).

 

[Warbringer]

Regardless half our group refuses to play Damage Save becuase they are married to HPs. They think it's "Fing Retarded" (to use another quote) to hit your opponent, maybe even crit... and then deal no damage. My response was that it was "Fing Retarded" that a 5th level character with HP will never die from a single "lethal" blow (just because I'm always the Devil's advocate and like to argue).

Here's our simple house rule for d20: critical's always at least wound, no matter the save.

 

[jdrakeh]

Here's a start, including a review by ENWorld's own Teflon Billy. I believe Arcady has a review out there, and there may be a few on RPG.Net, which I can't access from work.

http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?do=product&productid=146186

Cool! Thanks, Jim!

 

[Ranger REG]

Complaining about that is akin to asking why there's not Arcana Unearthed (or is it Unearth Arcana?) options in the PHB.

Unearthed Arcana. (With all due respect to Monte Cook and his product line, WotC should never have allowed this confusion.)

 

[Jim Hague]

Cool! Thanks, Jim!

Always happy to help out, and since I don't own a copy of 2e (yet), best to consult the informed opinions...plus, Billy's reviews rock on toast.