Players stuck is 2ed

[Ace]

I guess in the end analysis, in 2E I never had trouble getting power players to play a mix of spell casters and fighting types. In 3E, all the power gamers are fighters or fighters that use the class priest to be more powerful. The variation in the party is gone and I just get cookie cutter casters.

You know Kamosa has a point. I see a lot of the same things in our game. Almost no one wants to play spell casters.

This is partially a mix of "not getting" 3e and an artifact of our game worlds but until recently our groups almost never had clerics, druids or wizards. Sorcerers were a little more popular Otherwise its fighter, rogue, ranger thats about it

As for multiclass spellcasters --a party fighter took a level of sorcerer -- just for True Strike (for his pistols) and a nifty use of Mount once--


Multi Classed spell casters (especially Wizards) clearly weren't balanced otherwise 3.5 wouldn't have done the Eldritch Knight and (JMO) 3e wouldn't have had the Arcane Trickster --

I am glad to not be messing with 2.0 anymore (If I wanted that kind of game I would play Hackmaster) but the system worked well enough

 

[Krieg]

It's like old people: They always like the old times better, when there was war and everyone starved, and when your life expectancy was worse and a lot of maladies weren't curable, and you only had 2 TV-channels to choose from. They are used to limitations and can't cope with the freedom they have.

I like young people, they think that when they accomplish something it's the first time it's ever been done in the whole of human history. They have it rough because sometimes the satellite goes out and they are left with only a local UHF channel. They are certainly tougher than previous generations because of the numerous callouses they build up from marathon X-Box sessions. Besides, you don't spend all those years playing D&D and not learn a little something about courage. Their world is small & self-centered. It's kinda cute really.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I guess in the end analysis, in 2E I never had trouble getting power players to play a mix of spell casters and fighting types. In 3E, all the power gamers are fighters or fighters that use the class priest to be more powerful. The variation in the party is gone and I just get cookie cutter casters.

Wow, you must be playing a completely different RPG than I am.

When I played 2e, mages were easily the most popular class because, as KaeYoss mentioned, they were the godlike masters of everything. With the exception of the cleric to act as a walking first aid kit, most of the 2e parties I participated in were made up of mages, multiclassed fighter/mages, multiclassed thief/mages, and *shudder* Bladesingers (a completely overpowered fighter/mage class kit only available to elves).

In 3e, however, I've noticed that powergamers are willing to play as classes other than mage. I've seen powergamers play as fighters, barbarians, clerics, rogues, in addition to wizards and sorcerers. It makes for more interesting parties, IMHO.

 

[DM_Matt]

In 3e, however, I've noticed that powergamers are willing to play as classes other than mage. I've seen powergamers play as fighters, barbarians, clerics, rogues, in addition to wizards and sorcerers. It makes for more interesting parties, IMHO.

I agrtee, but there is another factor in play: It is vastly easier to powergame a mage. Buff up your casting stat, take the obvious set of feats that add to it (Spellcasting Prodigy, SF, GSF, Nymph's Kiss) and some other metamags and item creators to taste, add broken spells or PRCs from FR and you're set. Its not as much of a challenge.

For fighting classes, there are vastly more options, many more feat combos; class mixing, multiple PRCs, and minor ecl races (HOGRES!) are much more feasible beucase thy dont have to worry about spell level loss, equiptment matters more, etc.

For someone who truly enjoys powergaming, making a powerfighter is more challenging and thus more fun.

 

[diaglo]

I dont want to toss him out but I need to do something to show him that 3,3.5 edition can be so much more.

you aren't going to succeed. 2edADnD is a better game at least in his opinion. and of course it is opinion not fact that you are dealing with.

Has anyone else encountered this problem and got some way I can improve the situation.

just continue playing your game. unless you feel threatened that he may be right.

 

[Derulbaskul]

In one of my groups one of the players has been building his character from 1st to 15th level based on his memory of how a bladesinger was built in 2E.

So, we started at 1st level with complaints about why he couldn't use weapon finesse with a longsword (DM: "Um, you do realise there is a list of what weapons can be used with weapon finesse?" P: "Well a 2E bladesinger could use his Dex modifier with a longsword." DM: "Um, I don't recall whether or not that's the case but we are playing 3E.").

As the campaign progressed, the character simply became less and less effective due to repeated poor choices supposedly motivated memories of how such a character would progress in 2E. In fact, the build was so bad despite a rather generous 42-point point by for abilities and slightly above average equipment that the party's bard was significantly more useful... in non-city adventures and non-RP situations.

Anyway, that character has now been retired and a new 15th level character has taken its place. So, does anyone else have the problem, 3 1/2 years after 3E was released, of players still trying to build their characters based on 2E memories?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

So, does anyone else have the problem, 3 1/2 years after 3E was released, of players still trying to build their characters based on 2E memories?

That isn't really a problem, if it is done properly.

We're soon to start an evil ravenloft campaign. A couple of years back, we (or at least two of us) were in an evil ravenloft campaign, and the other player wants to recreate her character - in spirit at least. The 2e-Char had a lot of great ideas, but very often failed (but that was due to DM incompetence most of the time). It was a Bounty Hunter. Now, she will probably recreate the character with broadly the same abilities it had before. She'll use fighter/rogue (we use Gestalt rules, to that's even more useful, but she'd gone with that combo nonetheless).

 

[kamosa]

Sure. Let's go back to 2e where wizards were omnipotent, invulnerable masters of everything. And at the same time as ranting that the wizards were nerved (i.e. they are balanced now), we rant that clerics are way to good now (but at the same time they're crap now)

I don't know which version of 2E you were playing, but our mages were never omnipotent. As the GM, I smacked them around pretty good most of the time.

I'm not saying clerics aren't powerfull, I'm saying they are all the same, and that wasn't true in 2E. We adventured for a while with a cleric that could do no harm to any living creatures. He would help to solve the situtation in a non-violent, creative way. Not what I would call an omnipotent power character. Now, that kind of character is much harder to accomplish.

Sure, if you want to play a really powerfull fighter, you can do that through the priest class, but it used to be much more varied.

You don't want to see it, and that's fine. We don't play in eachothers game. All I was doing was defending that there was good things about 2E and not all of it was omnipotent power gaming crap. Some of it was flexability of character design and the ability to create a variety of usefull characters.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If it really gives you the expletive deleted's, then just make him RUN a game of it.

Make sure he does it by the book too.

And try to make the most hideously warped characters the world has ever seen. It's pretty easy with skills and powers.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I don't know which version of 2E you were playing, but our mages were never omnipotent. As the GM, I smacked them around pretty good most of the time.

With your own wizard npc's, which were even worse? Cause that's about the only one who can do anything against a stone skinned, invisible wizard with 3d20 other protections up.

I'm not saying clerics aren't powerfull, I'm saying they are all the same, and that wasn't true in 2E.

Isn't true in 3e, either. In fact, I consider the cleric as one of those classes where you have incredible elbowroom to customize it.

We adventured for a while with a cleric that could do no harm to any living creatures. He would help to solve the situtation in a non-violent, creative way.

And what keeps you from doing that in 3e?

Sure, you won't get any broken benefits from a peace-priest kit from level 1 in 3e, but you aren't doing it for that extra bonus, are you?

Sure, if you want to play a really powerfull fighter, you can do that through the priest class, but it used to be much more varied.

Or a fighter. Or barbarian. Or fighter/rogue. Or paladin.......

I've seen pretty powerful combat cleric (he used the whole staple, usually as quickened spells: Divine Favour, Divine Power, Righteous might, Greater Magic Weapon) and a pretty powerful warrior type in the same game. And the warrior didn't have to hide behind the cleric. Not at all.

You don't want to see it, and that's fine. We don't play in eachothers game. All I was doing was defending that there was good things about 2E and not all of it was omnipotent power gaming crap. Some of it was flexability of character design and the ability to create a variety of usefull characters.

You don't want to see it, and that's fine. I don't have any problems creating widely different characters of the same class in 3e (no matter what class that is), with different skills, feats, spells, and neither do a lot of people here on the board. Your problems to create 3e characters with diversity seems exactly that: your problem.