I always thought 3rd ed(without actually playing it) was just a simplified version of 2nd Ed.
Not until I started playing NWN did I realize how much they have warped the system. Warning, if you like 3rd ed., best not to continue reading.
I mean, how hard was it to figure thac0? And what the hell. Where it once took a careful selection of skills to compliment your class, now everyone can just take skills and the only difference is some people have to pay more for some than others. Ability scores? You mean those things you customize to your exact specifications, that actually INCREASE as you gain levels? Hi, my name is Diablo. And feats? I like slashing monsters all day long while using the same ability over and over and over and over and over again, all day long.
What the hell is the point to being a spell caster now anyways? Because you have a penchant for abuse and being mocked by meeles?
Back to the feats, it's sad when a game that started as pen and paper becomes the equivalent of what MtG is now. Hi, lets just stack ability on top of ability on top of ability, and get a one hit winning combo!!!! Yeah! That is soo much fun!
The most dissapointing thing I found out about 3rd ed. is when my friends told me what the intro note to the DM reads.
"Your most important job as DM is running combat." For anyone that played 2nd ed., that should just make you want to vomit, all over your PHB and DMG.
I haven't gamed in about 2 years, but thanks to WotC, they have insured I will never invest a single dime more in anything with the D&D name, unless it's before they sunk their claws into an otherwise good pen and paper game. Thanks for bringing the game to the masses, and taking it away from real fans.
Alright, I've played 2nd edition, and I play 3rd edition now. Really I don't care either way, it's gaming regardless. No Thac0 isn't difficult, but the whole D20 system is just nice. What kind of feats are you talking about by the way? I think the whole feat system (in the official WotC publications) is pretty damn good. I know some people are militant about 2nd edition, but really...3rd edition is not THAT bad.
A friend was describing a set of spell caster feats where you could basically memorize and cast a level 9 spell or so as a level 1 spell, and memorize it as such. Just the whole concept of "feats" period. Back in 2nd Ed, weapon profiecencies were a skill, specialization was a skill, monk hand damage was a monk class ability, knockdown as a skill or attribute roll at a minus to chance of success. Dodge was a skill. There weren't(unless the DM devised it so)general skills that pumped up other skills like improved parry. There wasn't a power attack skill, unless you count wielding your sword with 2 hands as a "power attack". MR wasn't something most people got, you had saving throws. Granted, the new saving throws include more kinds of saves, like being hit by a boulder and using fortitude, but that was easily doable under the old system too.
And when you think about the new armor class system compared to the old one, it gives you an idea of the basic theme of 3rd Ed. By taking out Thac0, they basically made the system open ended as far as combat is concerned. You can have, oh, my +69 to hit versus your 76 Armor class, and I roll a 10 to hit. Yeah damage! You never ended up with totals like that in 2nd Ed. except for rolling fireballs.
And skills weren't just a shmorgeshbord of stuff that anyone could select from. Fighters just never learned to sneak(without taking the time play as a Rogue), they just had to make a general, un skilled role. Hiding in Shadows wasn't something everyone could pick either, they could try, and the DM could apply difficulty to the roll as he saw fit. And you didn't "get better at skills". Skills came based off of stats, not points(with the exception of thief skills).
I feel like they adapted the whole game so it could go down onto a table top minature, Hero-Quest/Warhammer Fantasy-esqe game. Being Flat Footed and Attacks of Opportunity were things that a good DM put into combat, not that the system formalized.
In my mind, they dumbed it down. They call it giving players versatility over the game, I call asking them to think less about everything in general, asking them to have less imagination. The frame work of 3rd ed. takes a lot of power away from DM for fine tuning their world, it involves totally changing the rules now. It's less about gameplay, and more about combat, being fast paced. The disparity between meele classes and spell casters is grossly out of balance. Just to make spellcasters playable in NWN, they had to make like 10 new spells.
I don't get the feel of roleplaying with 3rd ed. I get the feeling of playing a table top war game, run by a very confining set of rules with little to no imagination. In 2nd ed., I've never played in anyone's world that was exactly the same, rules wise. DMs could tweak rules as they needed to make the world more appealing, and personalized. Can't do that with 3rd Ed. You have to change a lot to get outside of the system they built.
3rd Ed. was ultimately built for the power gamer. Big numbers, big super special spiffy attacks that you get as SKILLS. Combat has become more important than the rest of what's going on. In 2nd Ed. I could play 4 hours in a group without a instance of combat, and it was cool because the rules worked so your character skills did something else beyond kill stuff, and keep you from getting killed. Edited by: Nenjin Darkeyes at: 12/13/02 7:07:32 pm
Have you actually sat down and played P&P 3rd Edition?
I too thought 3rd sounded lame and from my experiences with NWN and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance reinforced that opinion. After actually sitting down and playing for over a month now (once a week, 4 hour sessions) I can say that I enjoy it very much.
Skills are on par with Non-Weapon Proficiencies and the feats seem daunting at first ... but it all works out. Yeah, you can blow it out of proportion ... same as with 2nd ... all it takes is a brain dead DM. I mean, if your DM is giving you equipment to where you can boost you AC to 76 then get a new DM.
Quote:
Being Flat Footed and Attacks of Opportunity were things that a good DM put into combat, not that the system formalized.
Umm ... if that makes a good DM, what is wrong with putting it in print to let other/newer DM's know about it?
Quote:
I don't get the feel of roleplaying with 3rd ed. I get the feeling of playing a table top war game, run by a very confining set of rules with little to no imagination. In 2nd ed., I've never played in anyone's world that was exactly the same, rules wise. DMs could tweak rules as they needed to make the world more appealing, and personalized. Can't do that with 3rd Ed. You have to change a lot to get outside of the system they built.
If everyone has different rules, you don't find that a bit annoying every now and then? And you can drop and change rules in 3rd ... are you sure you're reading the same books I am?
Quote:
3rd Ed. was ultimately built for the power gamer. Big numbers, big super special spiffy attacks that you get as SKILLS. Combat has become more important than the rest of what's going on. In 2nd Ed. I could play 4 hours in a group without a instance of combat, and it was cool because the rules worked so your character skills did something else beyond kill stuff, and keep you from getting killed.
What super spiffy special attack skills? Use Rope? Dimplomacy? In the sessions I've played in, we have 1-2 combat encounters ... seems like a good balance that pleases both the RPer's and the combat freaks.
All in all, the rules have nothing to really do with the gaming experience, IMO. Rules are meant as guidelines and the majority of how the game is run and how rediculousy powerful you are is left to the DM. If after your 2nd session of D&D you're killing a dragon and have an AC of 90, it's not the rules, it's your DM that's @#%$ up.
EDIT: Oh, just wanted to add, the one thing I don't like about 3rd E is the 'Sneak Attack' ... blah! I can attack from any direction? With any kind of weapon? Not to mention it makes me giggle thanks to Xraycat. But we dropped those rules from our campaign (since I'm the only Rogue and said @#%$ it) and play with traditional BACKSTAB rules! Cranberries - Monk - Ayonae Ro
Raspberries - Druid - Druzzil Ro
Kaleidoscope - Rogue - Druzzil Ro
I must just be a gaming relic, shaking my stick. I've leafed through a couple books at my gaming store, and have gone off what a lot of my old time group has described of the rules.
They said it was fun...but that it made them feel that combat and character advancement was more hack and slash than 2nd Ed. Like I said, skill selection, unbalanced feat distribution between meele and spell caster, and kinda the concept of feats in general. Characters all end up rounding out, with less specialization, because theres a lot of intermixing of skills and abilities, to make super characters.
Incidentally, I really like DMing where they are not afraid to change rules a touch. I think it adds depth to the world you are playing in when they add a nice innovative touch to the rule set, like their own skills, and character development quirks.
3e is in no way more hack & slash than 2e. read some of the ways you get exp from the 3e dmg compared to the ways you do in the 2e, and you'll see just how hack & slash 2nd edition was.
skill selection? I'm sorry, but it's hack & slash to be able to play a mage that might have diplomacy? or intimidate? or hide? remember, anything that isn't a CLASS SKILL costs twice as much and can only be at half of your class skill max ranks per level. what does that make? no, not a power character, but a character with versatility, instead of the 2e "all characters of each class are the same except for the weapons they use" template.
unbalanced feat distribution? how so? fighters get more feats than anyone, because that's their specialty - specific combat training and the ability to use many kinds of tactics. whereas casters now have feats for item creation, as well as having feats for item creation, ones that effect your spell power (at the cost of memorization slots), and even a few that can change the type of spell - ie, fireball becomes acidball. does this add to their power? not really, it just makes them VERSATILE so you're not always playing the same damn caster that you were in 2e.
characters can have MORE specialization in 3e. want to play a battle mage? play a sorcerer who focuses on combat spells - then, instead of taking various item creation feats, you can take ones that help with spell penetration, or that can increase your area effects or damage (again, at the price of memorization slots).
seriously, if you want a dumbed down system, look at the 2e you so praise. *that* is dumbed down, basic "I'm a fighter duh, my only individuality comes from the type of weapon I wield".
monk hand damage is a monk class ability, NOT a skill. specialization is a FIGHTER-only ability, not a skill. +69 to hit and 70ac is ludicrous. casters are just as balanced as melees, and CLERICS HAVE A PURPOSE beyond having to fill their slots up with cure spells.
sorry, but it really is painfully obvious that you don't have a clue what the game is like. stop listening to your friends' warped stories, stop basing a p&p game off a stupid pc game, and stop just "leafing" through the books - sit down and read it, sit down and play it. Edited by: Matheren at: 12/14/02 4:06:40 am
70+ AC would be really hard to get, and your DM would have to be really stupid to let every item in. Situational ACs of 50+ aren't outrageous (if you're fighting defensively, etc.), but I don't think you see much beyond 30ish in practice, and when you remember that AC starts at 10 and goes up from there, a 30 AC is the equivallent of a -10 AC from older versions.
I think 3e is pretty nice. There have actually been entire series gaming sessions in which we didn't fight once. If your friends play something like Living Greyhawk, then perhaps it's a powergamer game (that's what I've heard quite a bit actually), but it doesnt *have* to be that way.
As for the magic v. melee character, from what I've heard, at the higher levels the magic user reigns supreme and it's the tank that's useless. As Math said, the metamagic feats are really spiffy, letting you cast spells that automatically hit for maximum damage, etc.
As for feats, only Fighters really get enough feats that they can become uber through them, and that's just to make up for the fact that they have no special abilities. In the old rules (1st edit, I didn't play much 2nd) Fighter v. Ranger had a difference of 2hp per die and that was about it. However rangers had all these special abilities and spellcasting. The feat system lets a fighter customize himself so that there's actually a benefit beyond 2hp per die to playing him.
All in all, I'd say give it a whirl. I think the whole d20 system is pretty spiffy, and I think it will so amazing things for getting gamers playing games that they don't usually play, as well as getting newbies in and playing. Llabaktharr Gigglegiggler
51 Lawncare Facilitator and gnomosexualizer of da ladies (retired)
And introducing: Heremon, Level 39 Firbolg Bard of Percival, Legendary Grandmaster Smith
Sanditari Gigglegiggler, 37 'keen 'chanter
100% socializer 53% explorer 33% achiever 13% killer and 100% lover.
So, a computer game in which they cannot even get the addition and subtration reutines to work properly (No @#%$, seriously, the attack, damage, ac, and save rolls are all broken) is what you base a completely abstract analogue human controlled environment off?
You should have spent more bonus points on INT as you leveled.
What part of "Parry is a necessary part of the Aurora game engine and is not part of 3e dungeons and dragons" made you decide it was a good example to use?
And honestly, you're crazy. If someone wants to be a swashbuckler, a feat which makes them better at what they're doing (that can also stack with another feat spent on skill focus) makes... GOOD ROLEPLAYING SENSE.
You're also aware that being a multiplayer game, everyone must start on even footing with stats, hence the point buy method, right?
I mean, i can't help but laugh. Have you seen the bug list of nwn? A halfling has a +16 bonus to knock down a dragon due to reversed calculations. For the first 6 patches, a dagger was the best weapon to use to disarm 25 pound dire maces.
How about the maximized spells resulting in minimum damage?
Or your loser friends creating their Plate mail of godliness +50 in the built in complete-game editor? Only thing that gets ac that high is dragons. You know, 40 foot long, 40 foot tall scaled fire (or not) breathing beasts?
(It's quite possible they've fixed some of the stupid bugs, but I don't give a @#%$ anymore.) Pren, Human Transcendent on The Tribunal Server
Officer: Mithril Heart Brigade
If I would shed my skin, the layers left,
But not the lessons learned
It would not undo what I have done
Or grant forgiveness in some better days to come
yeah, it's *very* difficult to get ACs beyond 30. the thing with 3e ac is, named ac bonuses stack. ie, if you have bracers of ARMOR, then that's your armor bonus - and they won't stack with worn armor, or something like a "headband of armor" or whatever. you can wear bracers of armor and a necklace of natural armor, of course, but all in all there *aren't* too many things to give you bonuses to your ac. and if all you're doing is getting ac bonus items? well, your resistances can miss out, attributes can miss out, etc.
and yes, you do raise your attributes as you level - at the rate of *one* point every four levels. so a 20th level character will have had five points to spend between six attributes, and in this game every attribute really does mean something, no matter what class you are. want to be better at intimidation for those prisoner-questioning scenes? well, if it isn't a class skill, you better have a high charisma bonus because your rank is going to be pretty low. same goes for spot, or listen, or search - first two go off wisdom, latter goes off intelligence. and yet all three are very useful (some would say vital) skills to *any* character.
seriously; the combination of feats that allow you to customize and thus individualize one character of a class from another, the skill system that actually lets you use skills and BE skilled (and yet doesn't step on other class' toes), and the general streamlined system (all rolls are d20 + rank + any modifiers, ac goes up instead of down) makes for better and quicker play.
Prenn, lets not start with insults -- especially for something as dumb as this
And don't worry Nenjin, you've got one person on your side at least. I cannot stand 3rd Edition, I'm glad its bringing a whole new generation of gamers into the hobby but it ticks me off that they're learning it by those rules. Argh.
It's ok Glip, I'm used to Pren(n). Although, it's about as tacky as you can get to throw out Monty Haul insults to make your point.
But hold on a sec.
Quote:unbalanced feat distribution? how so? fighters get more feats than anyone, because that's their specialty - specific combat training and the ability to use many kinds of tactics. whereas casters now have feats for item creation, as well as having feats for item creation, ones that effect your spell power (at the cost of memorization slots), and even a few that can change the type of spell - ie, fireball becomes acidball. does this add to their power?
So why are 3x as many combat feats as there are general spell caster feats? Adding damage dice at the cost of spell memorization? Uh...yes that adds significant power. Oh gee, I just won't take knock this time around, and instead add extra damage to my humongous fireball. That way, I can actually deal damage in combat comprable to meeles, so I don't get bored. Forget those non-combat skills. I remember when creating a magic item took a year or so in game time, at the cost of more money than you make on two adventures, using the highest quality items that had to be quested for. But that takes too much time though, too tedious huh?
Spell penetration? WTF is that? Characer abilities that reduces your level memorization? WTF is that? Home brewed spells that can be whipped up in the middle of combat? WTF IS THAT? Special abilites like that came at the upper most levels of character advancement in 2nd Ed. Either by ass kicking magic, or by one shot, one a day abilities. It wasn't just part of your characters repotoire.
You may like 3rd ed. thats all fine and dandy. But it's chaulk full of stuff that NEVER CAME ANYWHERE NEAR THE 2ND ED SYSTEM. It's a multiplication of abilites to the extreme.
Quote:If someone wants to be a swashbuckler, a feat which makes them better at what they're doing (that can also stack with another feat spent on skill focus) makes... GOOD ROLEPLAYING SENSE.
I call it making people feel good about more stuff to make their charcters feel powerful. The whole idea of abilites stacking on to each is also new to 3rd ed. the whole idea of abilities modifying and empowering others. The very word stacking brings back bad memories of EQ, and lends itself to power gamers.
The most 2nd ed. ever came near that was adding stuff to hit rolls and damage. There was no "tier of abilities to become uber", unless you count the class abilities like Kensei weapon damage, monk damage tables, ect, and it was specific to class. It just wasn't open so you could design your wet dream fighter/monk/rogue/mage class.
I don't have problem with mages with diplomacy, or fighters that can sneak, but they should never be able to come anywhere close to preforming as another class will, and making it 2x the cost and differently capped by level doesn't cut it for me. Unless another character is blowing all their points on just their primary class skills, it wouldn't be hard to be on par with them, which is just wrong in my book.
Ever played GURPS, or anything like it, with open ended character creation? I liked 2nd ed. because you couldn't just make a medley of abilities and skills. Having a class had a point, a purpose, and a cost. Being a mage meant you couldn't wear armor, never could, combat wasn't your bag, and never would be. For a straight mage trying to deal out punishment at the level of top meeles, feats are required to balance it out.
Quote:How about the maximized spells resulting in minimum damage?
Hey! Remember when we used to roll dice, and if you rolled all ones, you got a 6 point fireball as a 6th level wizard? That was called chance. Adding +12 to your minimum spell damage is to keep people from crying when things didn't go their way.
The system changed because they understood average joe "I kinda like to game" got bored with leveling and character advancement in 2nd Ed. They needed a bigger carrot on the string to keep people playing along. Like in Diablo when you drooled for that next level so you could get Conviction, or Aura of Lightning, or abilities that had a significant impact on gameplay. The reason a high level fighter was good in 2nd ed was because of-
Their ability to hit lower armor classes more effectively(to hit tables by class, remember those?).
Their ability to use better armors than other non-meele focused classes.
Their ability to take damage to HP.
Weapon specializations to increases damage by 1 to 2 points, and their to hit 1 to 2 points.
NOT because they get specific abilities to serve a single purpose.
Dual weilding was something that was something that not everyone could do. And for those that could, the system didn't cater to them so they could eventually be hitting at +7/+3. Ambidex was not something everyone who could hold a weapon could end up with. Spell casting meeles were that way because it was part of the class, not because the system allowed you to mix meele/caster.
I'm not trying to convince you not to play 3rd ed. But for people to tell me that it isn't a completely different system from 2nd ed. and that it hasn't taken the core rules of 2nd ed. and hacked them to little bloody pieces can kindly go bury their head. It's one of those choices like "foreign or domestic" that has no really answer, it's by taste.
I don't feel gaming systems should cater to the wishes of players. Just because players want to have a rogue that dualwields long swords at no minus, can wear heavy armor, has fighter class abilities, casts 5th level wizard spells, is and is working on their 2nd level of cleric DOESN'T MEAN THEY SHOULD GET TO. Players like having options, but 3rd Ed. took that to the extreme. Why bother having a ranger class, when you can just level to 3rd as a fighter then start as a druid? Oh yeah, Ambidex and Two Weapon fighting for free at 1st.
Why bother having a rogue class? So you can choose to burn all your points in rogue abilites if you want to, as opposed to actually taking those skills because you are a rogue? Oh wait yeah, Sneak Attack rules.
2nd Ed. rules kept the idea of game rules representing real life. 3rd Ed. blew that out the window, and likened the system to a video game.
NWN uses 3rd Ed. rules because they are adaptable to a video game, hack and slash Diablo clone. The door swings both ways on the system. Can you imagine 2nd Ed. rules in a video game? I can. It's called old ass D&D roleplayers that were hard, where your abilities did not allow you to hack through 8 opponents with crap like Cleave, and Improved Cleave. They only way you killed 6 monsters easily was with god like luck, or a big ass fireball. Those games took time and had difficulty because players weren't gods. Skills(feats, the big cookie, whatever you want to call it) didn't change the flow of gameplay dramatically like they do in 3rd Ed.
Quote:seriously, if you want a dumbed down system, look at the 2e you so praise. *that* is dumbed down, basic "I'm a fighter duh, my only individuality comes from the type of weapon I wield".
Funny, we always thought individuality came from how you played your character, not what special abilities he had.
But if you want to talk about being an individual by the 2nd ed. system, it was great for that.
Not allowing players the wide freedom of customization was cool because if you were a rogue, damnit you were a rogue. You didn't have some fighter hedging in on your responsibilities because he wanted to be a "stealthy fighter".
And if really really wanted to, he'd still look like a total amatuer next to you.
Mages and Clerics weren't screwing around trying to disarm traps, that was your job. Monks didn't try to backstab things, Clerics didn't cast wizard spells, and if you decided to pick a non basic class like Kensei for example, there wasn't a single other class that mimic your style, your abilities.
2nd Ed. offered a wide wide range of characters that allowed people individuality, with abilities and rules specific to that class only. Customization of characters makes that hard.
The rules provided the base line in 2nd ed, players and DMs filled in the rest. 3rd ed mentality reduces the amount of interpretation required by players and DMs, it builds the entire system up around you, making it less nessecary to be creative.
Example
"DM: Guard says "I can't let you inside."
"Player: I"m going to try to fast talk the guard."
"Player: I'll tell him that my sister is inside, and she needs me to come up stairs so I can get the money to go the market for her. She's busy working all day."
"DM: What's your Cha?"
"Player: 12."
"DM: <does some dialouge>"
*rolls against NPC's Wisdom
"DM: Ok, looks like he bought it. Guards says "Alright, go ahead."
3rd Ed
"Player: I'm going to use fast talk on the guard. That ability makes my check 13, and I have +2 because of my Cha bonus, and then I also have persuasive speaker which adds another +3 to any checks involving speaking to individuals or groups."
"Player: I'll tell him I left my wallet upstairs."
"DM: Go ahead and roll."
*rolls
"DM: He buys it." Edited by: Nenjin Darkeyes at: 12/14/02 5:27:01 pm
Specific points of the rules aside, powergamers will powergame in any system, and roleplayers will roleplay in any system. If your group is a good one, the books you use won't ruin that. Not to claim the status of a "real professional" in any one endeavor has been a small price to pay for the many benefits and pleasures of trespassing. ~Leo Lionni
I'll say it again: Stop playing hacked NWN campaigns with munchkins and assuming that that is how 3e works.
"So why are 3x as many combat feats as there are general spell caster feats? Adding damage dice at the cost of spell memorization? Uh...yes that adds significant power. Oh gee, I just won't take knock this time around, and instead add extra damage to my humongous fireball. That way, I can actually deal damage in combat comprable to meeles, so I don't get bored. Forget those non-combat skills. I remember when creating a magic item took a year or so in game time, at the cost of more money than you make on two adventures, using the highest quality items that had to be quested for. But that takes too much time though, too tedious huh?"
Actually, you'd have to sacrifice a lvl5 or 6 spell slot to do that to your fireball, not a lvl2 spell slot. Again, you really need to actually look at the material. It doesn't even work that way in nwn.
Why are there more melee-specific feats? Because you can already do nearly everything with magic. From small tricks, to illusionary castles, to plane shifting, to melting armor off your foes, to raising the dead. Melee without magic, in any system, is utterly useless. Look at the balance of EQ right now. Fighters in 3e avoid this fate by having lots of feats.
You know, it might take 2 seconds for an NPC smith in NWN to make your magical armor, but you seem to forget that the DM controls everything in real pen and paper. Besides there being rather large component, material, and exp costs for item creation, the DM can always say you'll need to spend the next 3 weeks worth of campaigning to get the item you need...
"Spell penetration? WTF is that? Characer abilities that reduces your level memorization? WTF is that? Home brewed spells that can be whipped up in the middle of combat? WTF IS THAT? Special abilites like that came at the upper most levels of character advancement in 2nd Ed. Either by ass kicking magic, or by one shot, one a day abilities. It wasn't just part of your characters repotoire."
The spell penetration feats just add a couple of virtual levels when determining if your spell goes through a creature's magic resistance. Are you complaining about spontaineous casting in the rest?
"I call it making people feel good about more stuff to make their charcters feel powerful."
Good for you, you've got a rather narrow viewpoint of it... sounds to me that you resent combat at all.
You realize that the average character (non epic) gets 7 feats, right? You spend your two feats on trip and improved trip, now you're pretty good at takin' down small to medium sized targets with only one set of legs. Of course, you just spent 2/7ths of your customization abilities on that, so you should be good at that.
Why do you feel that customization is bad? Why is saying "My character is a light fighter, he's goot at fightin' dirty and at disarming weapons" and then spending 4 out of 7 feats to be a good disarmer and tripper a bad thing? That's character design.
"The most 2nd ed. ever came near that was adding stuff to hit rolls and damage. There was no "tier of abilities to become uber", unless you count the class abilities like Kensei weapon damage, monk damage tables, ect, and it was specific to class. It just wasn't open so you could design your wet dream fighter/monk/rogue/mage class."
Just like 3e, there is a limit of 3 classes. Hello, multiclass.
It's not a 'tier to become uber', it's the natural progression of the characters.
'I don't have problem with mages with diplomacy, or fighters that can sneak, but they should never be able to come anywhere close to preforming as another class will, and making it 2x the cost and differently capped by level doesn't cut it for me. Unless another character is blowing all their points on just their primary class skills, it wouldn't be hard to be on par with them, which is just wrong in my book.'
Fighter who spends 22 points on move silently: has 11 ranks in move silently
Rogue who spends 22 points on move silently: has 22 ranks in move silently
Fighter: 2 + intmod points per level
Rogue: 8 + intmod points per level
"Ever played GURPS, or anything like it, with open ended character creation? I liked 2nd ed. because you couldn't just make a medley of abilities and skills. Having a class had a point, a purpose, and a cost. Being a mage meant you couldn't wear armor, never could, combat wasn't your bag, and never would be. For a straight mage trying to deal out punishment at the level of top meeles, feats are required to balance it out. ""
What are you saying here? The last part is confusing.
If you're a mage, you suffer a spellcasting failure for wearing armor. A 25% failure chance is pretty damn high, and not hard to get. Are you implying that mages in 3e melee as well as fighters?
"Hey! Remember when we used to roll dice, and if you rolled all ones, you got a 6 point fireball as a 6th level wizard? That was called chance. Adding +12 to your minimum spell damage is to keep people from crying when things didn't go their way."
I'm afraid you failed to read the part where I said that NWN is so buggy that the MAXIMIZE DAMAGE FEAT resulted in minimum damage on every roll on certain spells. Just like it's so buggy that a character with an ac bonus of 20 gets treated as +40
"Their ability to hit lower armor classes more effectively(to hit tables by class, remember those?).
Their ability to use better armors than other non-meele focused classes.
Their ability to take damage to HP.
Weapon specializations to increases damage by 1 to 2 points, and their to hit 1 to 2 points.
NOT because they get specific abilities to serve a single purpose. "
Look, you havn't even looked at the 3e combat system.
lvl20 fighter: Four attacks. +20/+15/+10/+5
lvl20 Healers and vagabonds: +15/+10/+5
lvl20 wizard: Two attacks. +10/+5
Fighters fight better than bards fight better than sorcerers, in pure melee
I don't see how you consider weapon specialization anything other than a specific ability to serve a single purpose.
The feats allow you to take penalties to your attack roll and add them to damage, or to your ac (seperate feats), disarm weapons easier, trip opponents easier, be better at charges, and so on. You know that weapon focus and specialization still exist... as feats... right?
You could pour all your feats into being a cleaving, power attacking, ridiculous character if you wanted, but all the DM has to do is throw something at you with a little thought behind it.
"Dual weilding was something that was something that not everyone could do. And for those that could, the system didn't cater to them so they could eventually be hitting at +7/+3. Ambidex was not something everyone who could hold a weapon could end up with. Spell casting meeles were that way because it was part of the class, not because the system allowed you to mix meele/caster."
Look, dual wielding requires you have huge dexterity. Ambidexterity requires 15 dex. If you want to wield them without spending two feats on ambidexterity and two weapon fighting, then you'll suffer a -10 penalty on each attack you make.
"I don't feel gaming systems should cater to the wishes of players."
What?
" Just because players want to have a rogue that dualwields long swords at no minus, can wear heavy armor, has fighter class abilities, casts 5th level wizard spells, is and is working on their 2nd level of cleric DOESN'T MEAN THEY SHOULD GET TO."
Dual wielding longswords... -4 penalty, with two feats spent on dual wielding, and 15 dexterity.
Heavy armor... requires you spent a feat on still spell, which means you'll have to be able to cast lvl6 wizard spells to cast your lvl5 wizard spells.
A fighter/wizard/cleric/thief is also impossible, due to the whole 3 class limit thing.
"Players like having options, but 3rd Ed. took that to the extreme. Why bother having a ranger class, when you can just level to 3rd as a fighter then start as a druid? Oh yeah, Ambidex and Two Weapon fighting for free at 1st. "
Because druids who use forbidden equipment lose all of their druidic abilities for a period of 24 hours, each time they transgress? And, the ranger class has been notoriously broken in D&D history. Thank drizzt for that.
"Why bother having a rogue class? So you can choose to burn all your points in rogue abilites if you want to, as opposed to actually taking those skills because you are a rogue? Oh wait yeah, Sneak Attack rules. "
Rogues get twice as many skill points as the nearest other classes. They get four times as many skill points as wizards, sorcerers, warriors, paladins, and clerics. That cleric with 3 skill points per level sure is going to keep concentration maxed, while keeping his social and thieving skills maxed. Oh yeah, they cost twice as much anyway.
"NWN uses 3rd Ed. rules because they are adaptable to a video game, hack and slash Diablo clone. The door swings both ways on the system. Can you imagine 2nd Ed. rules in a video game? I can. It's called old ass D&D roleplayers that were hard, where your abilities did not allow you to hack through 8 opponents with crap like Cleave, and Improved Cleave. They only way you killed 6 monsters easily was with god like luck, or a big ass fireball. Those games took time and had difficulty because players weren't gods. Skills(feats, the big cookie, whatever you want to call it) didn't change the flow of gameplay dramatically like they do in 3rd Ed. "
It's rather ludacris that 8 gibberlings had a good chance of beating up a decent level rogue in combat in 2e.
""Player: I'm going to use fast talk on the guard. That ability makes my check 13, and I have +2 because of my Cha bonus, and then I also have persuasive speaker which adds another +3 to any checks involving speaking to individuals or groups."
"Player: I'll tell him I left my wallet upstairs."
"DM: Go ahead and roll."
*rolls
"DM: He buys it." "
None of which exist, except the +2 bonus from charisma.
You know why I flamed you, and the others ridiculed you?
Because, you are basing your judgements of the system off OF A HACK AND SLASH DIABLO CLONE COMPUTER GAME.
NWN is, in every sense of the word, a diablo clone. Instead of actually having read a single page of the 3e player handbook, you play Dungeons and Diablo then say that since the computer game is like that, naturally the real thing is.
So far, none of us have said that 2nd edition revolved around combat because they had a lvl20 kensai/lvl21 mage in baldur's gate 2.
3e is more action oriented than 2nd edition is. No one denies that. One more time: You have not researched it in the slightest, and the information you have is tainted, and you are using it to argue with.
That is what people are arguing back about.
Fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue... you can't even do that in NWN, dude, and you can have 60 ac there.
seriously nenjin, this isn't an insult or anything - but GET A DAMN CLUE about this. every single complaint you've had about 3e is SO off base and incorrect, it's @#%$ ridiculous.
read the books, play the game, THEN come back with some halfway-logical complaint instead of throwing out a bunch of random drivel.
if you've actually played it and dislike it, that's fine. I stopped gaming with a few other people because the guy that always wanted to be DM thought it was "too character driven", ie it let the characters have too many choices of their own instead of letting the dm control every aspect of creation, so he only plays 2nd edition.
of course, he'll only player older editions of champions, the ones where it takes 3 hours just to write up a character. I think, in general, he's just against "new systems" because he's been playing the old ones for so long.
but the reasons listed in this aren't even viable reasons - every thing he's listed just plain isn't true for 3e. if he'd said he just didn't want to spend money on books for a new edition, that's fine and I can understand it; I'm the same way with, for example, d20 rokugan. but all I've seen here is "my friends who don't know the rules told me this, and a pc game that didn't get any rules right does it that way".
Actually, I haven't played D&D in any form in almost 2 years. I recently got back together with my gaming friends and started talking about getting back into it, and what their opinion of 3rd ed. was. They've played thier fair share, and I trust their opinion of it. They understand the system well enough to exploit it, and are critical of it because it can be exploited. I have looked at the 3rd ed. books some, but I guess not enough, which I'm going to rectify soon. Being cheap has nothing to do with it.
*shrug* I don't consider not wanting to get into a new edition of a system to be cheap. especially for people (including my friends and I) who played something like second edition for 8 years and bought countless books (core books, various setting books) and then switched to 3rd.
but if your friends are the ones that told you about using metamagic feats to do things like decrease a level 9 spell to taking a level 1 slot, they're flat out cheating, not exploiting. metamagic *increases* the slots you need, not decreases. to have a maximized fireball, you have to take up an 8th level (as I recall, may just be sixth) spell slot - which obviously means you have to be a very high level caster. that's just one example of many things that you seem to have huge misconceptions about.
and not liking a system because your friends can heavily exploit it? come on. I've seen legend of the five rings, 2nd edition d&d, seventh sea, shadowrun (2nd and 3rd), all three world of darkness', and various other systems absolutely ripped apart and built back together by a group of powergamers. any system can be exploited by those who have the time and inclination to do it - your best solution is to find a group that *isn't* interested in doing that sort of thing we've got one guy in our group who tries for it, and is mildly successful, but as he often DMs we don't have to worry about him doing it really.
It's the fact they can and have exploited 3rd ed. that makes me leary. It's not that they focus on it, but they saw the potential for it in 3rd ed. as a glaring problem, where as in 2nd ed. they didn't really see the system supporting it, and to be really sickly uber meant finding optional classes that were up to DM discretion to use. They see it as a system built twoards power gaming, and I trust that analysis enough coming from them that I form my opinions, but I am going down to the hobby shop to have a reading session.
FOr what it's worth, my understanding is that there have been some glaring game balance issues exposed, and in July 03 new versions of the 3e rules will come out that will fix them. As we have seen in all the MMORPGSs out, no matter how much playtesting you do, when you release the game to the masses they'll find the holes in the rules and exploit it until it's fixed. There's a lot of stuff in the auxilliary books, for instance, that can overpower a character (this is what I've read, I haven't been actively playing long enough to have any exploitable characters LOL)
And in a much more polite tone of voice, most of what you've complained about *is* pretty wrong, from what I've seen. I'm not sure that your gaming friends are giving you the straight dope, or if they are, they're not playing by the same rules everyone else is
Not being mean, but it's silly to complain about something you have no experience with. It really sounds like your friends have no idea what they're doing. Yes, it is possible to bend the rules to rediculous ends ... which I find to be true with damn near any game ... but like I said before, it's all about the DM having a good head on his shoulders more than anything. He shouldn't be allowing you to bend rules around to stupid ends.
Up until about 2 months ago, I was totally anti-3e. 2e was soooo awesome. Soooo cool. 3e is for morons! But I hadn't done P&P in a long time and the boys at my work play once a week and they do 3e ... so I gave it a shot. And it's great. It took awhile to wrap my brain around some of the concepts, but I'm glad I took the time to give it a chance.
That being said, Rifts is still better than all other P&P!
Quote:What the hell is the point to being a spell caster now anyways? Because you have a penchant for abuse and being mocked by meeles?
Sorry, but you can't really say something like this if you had played the game.
In 3rd Edition, a caster will STILL kick the ass of any melee, especially in high-levels - the SAME as in 2nd Edition.
(Adv.) Dungeons & Dragons has almost always favored casters over melees, and 3rd Edition hasn't changed a thing with that.
Beyond let's say level 5, an equal level cleric will kick the ass of a warrior every single time (provided he isn't surprised by the warrior). And that's by MELEEING. An equal level caster will easily finish off an melee too, again, provided he isn't surprised.
I won't even start ranting on the abilities of a level 20 druid or wizard compared to those of a level 20 rogue. Veteran ShadowCross Bladesong
- Everquest: Veteran Shadowcross Bladesong, Teir'dal Assassin (63), Antonious Bayle
- Assistant Messageboard Administrator: The Safehouse - An RPG Rogue Community
- Webmaster of succubus.de; Shadow Court Sidhe Lord & Owner of The Fae House
- LARP: Lord Crian ShadowCross Lugh-Goldstien, Baron of Tirion, Shire of Pendaran, Terra Nigra
You can roleplay or powergame in ANY game regardless of the rules. It's not the rules that define this, it's the participants.
Some people will not like 3e vs. 2e regardless of anything that is said or done, just like some people won't understand how you _can't_ NOT like 3e, and see that it is completely superior to 2e.
Also like others have said above, your experiences seem to come from NWN and other people you came with who seem to be warping the rules all out of proportion. You probably should read for yourself and judge for yourself.
(I'm also sort of curious what problems Glip has with the system, whether is specific instances, or just a feel thing)
"optional classes that were up to DM discretion to use. They see it as a system built twoards power gaming, and I trust that analysis enough coming from them that I form my opinions, but I am going down to the hobby shop to have a reading session. "
I am glad that you are.
You however keep making an extremely big logical error: The DM has as much control in 3e as they do in 2e.
"OK, I leveled up. I'm taking a level as cleric."
"How is your atheist mage/thief becoming a cleric?"
"I uh... @#%$."
Pren, Human Transcendent on The Tribunal Server
Officer: Mithril Heart Brigade
If I would shed my skin, the layers left,
But not the lessons learned
It would not undo what I have done
Or grant forgiveness in some better days to come
Its just like EQ though. Melees are dependant on items to help them get better and casters with their own spells. I have a level 19 sorc in an Oriental Adventures campaign we have (d20 version not L5) and could take most of the party if I had too. The shaman (think cleric with monk feets here and there) and the archer would give me the worst time. And it was only since about level 15 that I could start holding my own, before that I would get rocked by anyone. If the melee has SR or good saves I would have serious problems (if they could fly or otherwise keep me grounded).
I have never played 2e but from what my group has said, 3e is a much better system.
In Second Edition AD&D it is possible to do upwards of 20 damage with a single arrow at first level if you use the right kits and abilities. Note this is without using critical hit rules or variants of any sort. Every shot has the capability of doing 20 or so damage. In a single round, my little halfling archer dropped a 35hp ogre before anyone else even knew it was there.
So, yes, any system can be exploited and 2nd Edition using kits was even more exploitable than 3rd edition. Not to say 3rd is perfect. Anyone who has ever read Incantatrix and done the math to see that they can drop over 400 damage in a singe round knows that there are some *really* broken things in 3rd ed and it requires a good level headed GM to stop the abuses before they begin. And that is no different than 2nd ed.
In short, play what you enjoy and relax over the whole thing. Everyone has their own tastes and preferences and that is what makes us interesting.
Tel, what setup were you using for that 20 damage arrow?
We're talking Player's Option I assume -- Just in my head here in class I can only think of getting up a a max up +8 dmg on a d8 arrow, meaning 16 points of damage for a max assuming your first level character is a pure fighter. (not tryin to start an argument, am generally curious as I usually am on to of these things but I can't think of how to do that) edit: nm, forgot about composite bows.
Anyway, what is all comes down to is level vs skill based. I detest item centric systems and because of that I naturally prefer 2nd Edition: Players option because of all the D&D versions and variations I've played (not just 1st 2nd and 3rd Ed but all the alternate rules along the way) it fufills my skill based wants the best.
Now, thats why I like 2nd Ed: Player's Option over 3E. My reasons for hating 3E is that is not Dungeons & Dragons. If they called it anything else I'd have no problem with it, I wouldn't play it because I dont like it still, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. I think a lot of the changes they made were needless and took away from the game. I just dont like it.
They did not make it so you can convert characters from other editions very easily. Switching between 1st and 2nd is a piece of cake, have you tried converting established characters to 3rd?
Add that to the fact that while I enjoy Todd Lockwood's art I think its bad for D&D. Everything does not need spikes, we are all new age pointy little people. It is OKAY to have an archtype looking character, thats what the game is about. And enough with the freaking lines through everything already.
Don't recall, precisely, Glip. It was a kit out of one of the Forgotten Realms books (I think the Mage and Rogue book, but again, it was several years ago.)
The basic gist was, I couldn't use anything but a bow (non-proficient with all bow weapons) but with a bow I got some damage bonuses (I think from Dex and Str, but not certain.)
I'll look it up again and let you know the name once I get a home tonight.
Played a lot of second edition, played a lot of 3rd edition....either system can be abused and it comes down to a DM who has a good story to tell on whether the game is "fun."
Personally, I like 3rd edition and D20 in general because my group shifts worlds quite a bit and it's nice to have the same base ruleset whether the setting is fantasy, modern, or cyberpunk. Sure there are things I don't like (5 foot step!!!!) but overall, it provides a good basis for roleplaying, which is the whole point of the exercise.
- Nymm
Prexus, Assassin, 1 ea.
Quote:
Example
"DM: Guard says "I can't let you inside."
"Player: I"m going to try to fast talk the guard."
"Player: I'll tell him that my sister is inside, and she needs me to come up stairs so I can get the money to go the market for her. She's busy working all day."
"DM: What's your Cha?"
"Player: 12."
"DM: <does some dialouge>"
*rolls against NPC's Wisdom
"DM: Ok, looks like he bought it. Guards says "Alright, go ahead."
3rd Ed
"Player: I'm going to use fast talk on the guard. That ability makes my check 13, and I have +2 because of my Cha bonus, and then I also have persuasive speaker which adds another +3 to any checks involving speaking to individuals or groups."
"Player: I'll tell him I left my wallet upstairs."
"DM: Go ahead and roll."
*rolls
"DM: He buys it."
Number one, the skill is called Diplomacy. Number two, what happened in your first example could happen in your second example. It's up to the DM. The DM can set s DC of 20 against the player or roll the guards sense motive + wisdom bonus. *shrugs*
On top of all that... they could make the player ROLEPLAY it out anyway despite the rolls. I've done that many times in my game. Told the player to make the roll and then told them to roleplay it out til I felt the guard was convinced with their story. If they made glaring mistakes, well... then I start shifting their success down some.
And one point about playing casters... two words: prestige classes. I love my wizard. She only got to 5th level though... before becoming an elemental savant of ice. Now at 15th level she's immune to crits, sleep, poison, has darkvision, immune to cold and the a vast spell repretoire that means I can cast a couple spells when I wake in the morning and be immune to fire and lighting (the two most common energy elements used by standard wizards).
The first thing I do in any combat that looks like it might be a plot point is cast mass haste and then mass fly. Really screws up the NPC's when their bodyguards are suddenly left behind by the flying PC's. Add in the fact that I've permanently enchanted myself (at the cost of some 5000 xp) See Invis, Detect Magic, Read Magic, & Comprehend Lang.
Now... to clear up Meta-Magic feats. They DO NOT let you memorize a 9th lvl spell as a 1st lvl spell. What they do allow you to do is modify your spells to be more powerful, encompass larger areas, change their shape (Cone of Cold to Cylinder of Cold, etc.), change them from fire to ice or fire to lightning,etc.
But this is done at the cost of increasing the level required to memorize the spell. For example:
To maximize the dmg of a Magic Missile, you would have to prepare it as a 5th level spell, not a 1st level spell. Which isn't really all that overpowering. 25pts of guarenteed dmg, that will hit (unless they have a shield spell up). I personally would just empower a fireball to do half it's damage again instead of maximizing a magic missile.
I have played both pure melee and pure caster. My pure melee was a brutal fighter that sundered weapons, shields, and armor left and right. That was their only purpose.
2nd Edition was very very limiting on what you could accomplish with in game skills to make your character unique. Kits and the Options series were too unwieldly to be really usefull. The THAC0 system was a P.I.T.A. to explain to new people. And not everyone I gamed with was good at math. Some people just don't understand how to subtract a negative number no matter how many times you explain it to them.
3E took care of all that. It's a little imbalanced in some places, but I guess they're revising the rules (although I will not be buying all new books). I'm sure some website somewhere will post a list of all the changes.
I have had more fun playing 3E over these past two or three years then I did playing 2E the prior eight years. I can get into character more easily knowing my character is what I want it to be, rather then a close semblance.
~Aly
p.s. The above is my personal opinion and an attempt to sway you to the dark side of D&D. However, it is your gaming life to do with as you wish.
Quote:Anyway, what is all comes down to is level vs skill based.
They are both level based systems, and 3e is more skill centric. Is this how you see it, or another way?
Quote:I detest item centric systems and because of that I naturally prefer 2nd Edition
At their base levels 2e is just as item centric as 3e, 3e just puts a more organized view upon the subject. Both games can be de-itemized, or have their itemization increased, I've seen all these cases.
Quote:Players option because of all the D&D versions and variations I've played (not just 1st 2nd and 3rd Ed but all the alternate rules along the way)
I found player's option stuff to be far more cheesy and exploitable than 3e. The way they had the split stats working was absolutely wonky and ultimately min-maxable.
Quote:it fufills my skill based wants the best.
Fair enought
Quote:Now, thats why I like 2nd Ed: Player's Option over 3E. My reasons for hating 3E is that is not Dungeons & Dragons. If they called it anything else I'd have no problem with it, I wouldn't play it because I dont like it still, but I wouldn't have a problem with it.
base attack bonus and positive armor classes are THACO and old armor classes with the directions reversed so it makes MUCH more sense
spellcasting is still preparation based
rogues instead of percentages have 5% increments (using d20 instead of d100) but percentages still remain
weapon proficiencies are part of feats now
nonweapon proficiences are skills, just converted to different numbers.
They are still mostly the same, there is some feel differences, admittedly.
Quote:I think a lot of the changes they made were needless and took away from the game.
Such as?
Quote:I just dont like it.
Sometimes, that is just the way it goes.
Quote:They did not make it so you can convert characters from other editions very easily. Switching between 1st and 2nd is a piece of cake, have you tried converting established characters to 3rd?
I have done 1 to 2 and 2 to 3. Yes 1 to 2 is far easier that 2 to 3. However 2 to 3 goes just fine if you're doing single class characters, multiclass characters cause greater problems, but no insurmountable,and worth it.
Quote:Add that to the fact that while I enjoy Todd Lockwood's art I think its bad for D&D. Everything does not need spikes, we are all new age pointy little people. It is OKAY to have an archtype looking character, thats what the game is about. And enough with the freaking lines through everything already.
Art is always in the eye of beholder. However I have seen good games with crappy art, and crappy games with good art. But yes, art can distract from the game.
Quote:I could keep going, but you get the point
Mostly, I think mostly its a "feel" thing
Should clear one thing up Nameless, I'm talking about 2E players option. 2E in itself is just as much level based. But with players option far more emphasis is put on skills than levels or items for the most part -- or at least if thats the kind of game you want to run its much easier to do so.
Any game can be fun with the right group and the right DM. But on a whole, I just like 2E: Player's Option the best. Maybe thats because it was the main system my buddies and I used in my first real D&D campaign, but either way I like it and probably always will like it more than the other stuff.
And the look does mean a lot to the game -- its just not the same when I dont see Jeff Easley's warrior busting through the door when I go to open up my handbook.
I think the Easly artwork looks shite, but like Glip, I prefer the archetypical look. Leave spiky armor and funky styles to important characters
As for 3E, it is way way way better for new players, but I think it gets a bit too player controlled at times with more experienced players (especially if they are used to playing it directly by the book).
"I should have an AOO!!"
"But you are too tired from the long fight to take advantage of the situation"
"The rules say nothing about that!!"
"I rolled high enough, lemme in"
"But you roleplayed it so bad that I rule it a failure"
"Cheater. The dice decide! You just won't let us win. I'm out of here"
(and you won't always have replacements for those players )
Quote:"I rolled high enough, lemme in"
"But you roleplayed it so bad that I rule it a failure"
"Cheater. The dice decide! You just won't let us win. I'm out of here"
Actually... the rules (DMG & PHB I believe) say the DM can arbitarily add bonuses and penalties to dice rules because of poor or excellent roleplaying.
*shrugs* I have no problem with trying to roleplay something out when I'm the PC. But... I do know that as a DM I have to make allowances for new players still learning, shy players, and those that just don't get the RP aspect and would rather slaughter stuff.
It's all about knowing your players. It doesn't matter what rule system or game you use. Just know what your players are capable of ( and even then they still surprise the hell out of me at time) and make sure to cater to what you feel from pass experience and judgement they can handle, what they expect.
2E, 3E: Those are the two editions of D&D that I played regularly. I tried Player's Option once. I didn't like it. The split stats just invited min-maxxing. And the ability to customize your race was just disgusting.
*shrugs* But again, do what you feel is fun for you and your players.
Okay, I'll bite. Lets see just how high you can get your AC in 3ed using just the core rulebooks.
+5 Full plate 13ac
+5 large shield 7ac
+5 ring of protection 5ac
+5 amulet of natural armor 5ac
+5 defender 5ac
dex bonus to ac limited 1 due to the full plate. 1ac
full defense action 4ac
expertise feat 5ac
dodge feat 1ac
Thats a total of 51 ac. That doesn't include spells from clerics and such that can increase your AC. And of course it doesn't include epic level gear.
Of course, nobody in any decently run campaign will have all the above items.
As far as the maximum damage fireball goes. As a level 3 spell, in order to cast a fireball that automatically does maximum damage, you must have the Maximize Spell feat, and you must use up a level SIX spell slot at it requires that you memerize the spell 3 levels higher than it normally takes.
Its worth mentioning that you will not, of course, be able to attack with 51 ac....
I must admit, I think 3ed is just much better. It's taken all the random twiddly rolls (d20 high, d20 low, d% low) and stuck them all into one. Much easier. The classes are more balanced, which I value having played a second edition thief (why? I'm still not sure). And also the races are more balanced. There is a reason to be human! Yay!
No more dual classing (I've been a fighter to level 8, now I want to be a priest. Wow... what's this funny thing? kind've long sharp bit with a blunt end... A sword eh? Hows it work?)
A couple of other points about 3rd AC. A dwarf against a giant gains another +4=)
Another option that adds on to the 51 ac from above would be a ring of spell storing. Store a couple self only ac buffs (shield, ...) and you are money.
heh some of those may not even stack. remember, you can't have two ac bonuses of the same type - thus, for example, shield spell + a shield do not work.
I also don't think armor + ring of protection work.
Well, the game balance is slightly different in 3rd Ed compared to 2nd Ed.
As for a 70 AC, the best thing about that is Touch Attacks ignore a whole lot of that AC. So, you can min max all you want for it, but the GM and other players still have tools they can use to bring you back down to size if you get out of hand.
My boyfriend's dad won't play anything beyond the very first AD&D game (not 2nd ed.), his son is similarly resistant. I was resistant to go from 2nd ed. (familiar turf, knew a rogue's skills inside and our) to 3rd ed.
I also don't like the new 'sneak attack', but not because I feel it is more roguely to backstab, but that I shouldn't have to have someone else there 'flanking' for me to slide a blade into someone's lung.
It all comes down to whether or not your DM is one of the rare 'good' ones.
I have one character for hack n' slash DM's...
...and then there's my pet project, a master at espionage and interrogation, she will be mostly rogue with a lot of the charisma based skills, but with enough mage levels to be able to cast scrying and charming spells. Sort of like a female James Bond. This is the character I bring out when I know that the DM is not just going to throw monsters at us, the one where you have to figure out just what's going on in a city or somesuch. Baroness Delissandra Splitshadow - Half-Elven Assassin - "Far Seekers" - The Rathe
Grandmaster Poisoner (250), Master Potter (183), Grandmaster Lush (200)
"Camping leads to phat lewt, Phat lewt leads to twinking, Twinking leads to the DARKSIDE." ... "So do I feel superior to any druid-twinked post-Kunark still-sucking-at-his-mother's-teat rogue? You better believe I do!!" - Delissandra Splitshadow ... "All you whiney crybaby twink bastard ass camping ravenscale back in the day wizards can kiss my ass." -Caiwin Khanduras ... "I played a rogue when it wasn't cool, we were the s#!+tiest class in the game, I backstabbed for 1 a lot." - Shanar Nefandus ... "Guys, this suxxors, you must all leave the rogue class NOW! You don't like that enchanters or rangers get, then make a enc/rang twink. Stop playing your rogue!Then I can again be THE rogue on the raid like I used to be and not rogue_alt06 like I am now." - Patofnaud ... "I just slept 2 hours, and I am afraid of the moment when the Cafeine buff icon will start blinking" - Popi Tinythug
