Intuitive Rules - 2nd Ed. AD&D vs. D&D 3E/3.5

[Lancer 0]

The following is a painful reminder of just why 3e is the worst incarnation of D&D:

 

 

* Paladins can't multi-class and return to their paladin class.

* Clerics and druids can wear armor and cast spells without ASF.  Wizards, sorcerers, and bards cannot.

* Dodge bonuses stack.  Deflection bonuses do not stack.

* Trained only skills cannot be advanced while multiclassing to a class that lacks that skill as a class skill, but non-trained only skills can be advanced at a half rate.

* Touch attacks discount armor and shield bonuses to armor class, but keep deflection.

* Undead can't be affected by charm spells.

* Ability score bonuses increase at a ratio of 1:2 with the ability score itself, but the point buy system becomes increasingly costly.

* Drinking a potion provokes an AoO.  Turning undead does not provoke an AoO.

* You need to use fire or acid to kill a troll.

* An unarmed 15th level fighter does not threaten an area and will provoke an AoO if he or she attacks.  An unarmed 1st level monk does threaten an area and will not provoke an AoO if he or she attacks.

 

This list could be pages long.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited January 13, 2006 by Lancer

[J.E. Sawyer 6,378]

If you want a 2nd Ed. list, it would be twice as long.

[Darque 13]

If you want a 2nd Ed. list, it would be twice as long.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd believe it.

[Lancer 0]

If you want a 2nd Ed. list, it would be twice as long.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd believe it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nah... don't.

[Shadowstrider 45]

Twice as long? I'd say more like three or four times as long. 1st ed., would be even worse.

 

Edit: Oh yeah, and get back on topic, and such.

[Lancer 0]

Doubt it. None of the other iterations have redundant and silly rules like AoO. Which in and of itself is a big list.

 

BTW, Basic D&D kills 3e/3.5e in terms of simplicity and elegance. And arguably so do 1e and 2ndEd.

 

@ Shadowstrider: That's all I had to say so get back on topic!

Edited January 13, 2006 by Lancer

[J.E. Sawyer 6,378]

None of the other iterations have redundant and silly rules like AoO.

We've been over this already. AoOs were introduced in C&T.

 

Besides, we don't need to point to AoOs when we have things as intuitive as the 2nd Ed. thief skill system vs. everyone else's non-weapon proficiency system and the wondrous saving throw divisions.

 

EDIT: lol 2nd Ed. multiclassing lol

[Lancer 0]

We've been over this already.  AoOs were introduced in C&T.

 

Which are not even part of the 2ndEd core rules. I am talking about the core-rules not supplements or optional add-ons.

 

 

Besides, we don't need to point to AoOs when we have things as intuitive as the 2nd Ed. thief skill system vs. everyone else's non-weapon proficiency system and the wondrous saving throw divisions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is not too hard to remember to use percentile dice for the thief skill chart and a d20 for NWPs.

 

That's it.

 

AoOs on the other hand...

Edited January 13, 2006 by Lancer

[alanschu 1,238]

Just to get my two cents worth:

 

 

2nd Edition = more bulky than 3rd Edition.

 

I've had an infinitely easier time getting people to understand the rules of a CRPG based on 3rd Edition rather than AD&D.

 

I mean, that +1 bonus with your sword lowers your THAC0 by one. Talk about intuitive. And the bizarre saving throws, which despite my many times of playing BG and BG2 I never really fully understood, was crystal clear.

 

If you get an item that provides a -1 to THAC0, among other goodies, is it a compromise to the other nice abilities making you think about using it, since you'll hit less often? Or is it just another buff? -1 to THAC0 is nice, but often when stated like that it means a penalty.

 

Not to mention that better armor provides you with less Armor Class?? I guess less is more!

 

 

Sure, after you get used to all these rules it's no problem. But if anyone claims that they made perfect sense out of all this their first time looking at AD&D rules, I say they are lying. There is nothing intuitive about an INCREASE in Armor providing a LOWER number. It might seem that way to us now...but that's only because we're used to it. Show two people that have zero familiarity with D&D, and all other things being equal, I guarantee the 3rd edition player will grasp things quickly...especially if not being coached by someone.

[Darque 13]

3rd edition was the best thng that could happen to DnD.

 

And if the old codgers who are fixated on Thac0 don't like it... tough (w00t)

[alanschu 1,238]

I think that that has a lot to do with it.

 

Because a lot of the "oldies" were used to it, they see it as inferior. And because all the nuances made sense to them with all of their experiences, they'd find it less intuitive as well.

 

 

Few people like change, especially if it's with a system they like.

[Lancer 0]

Nonsense. All you have shown here is that the most basic of 3e rules are simple.

 

If you tell me that someone that has zero experience with D&D can grasp AoO with all its intricacies the very first time, I'd say you are lying. If you tell me that YOU got AoO the very first time with all its intricacies and exceptions I'd also say you are lying.

 

The fact that someone can understand the basic "gist" of AoO is not good enough. You need to know the details and specifics perfectly to be a good GM.

 

3e may seem simpler than 2ndEd but only at face value. The 3e game quickly rears its ugly head once you look at the rule specifics for both with its myriad number of unintuitive rules and game mechanics just to maintain game balance. Josh's mini-list barely scratches the iceberg.

 

If I ever had the inclination of going through my 3e manuals again and make a list of all the unintuitive rules in that system (1 buck for every rule) I'd be a millionaire. Learning 3e felt much like learning Chemistry. A system with simple mechanics on face value marred by overly complex nitpicky little rules and exceptions.

 

I've had an infinitely easier time getting people to understand the rules of a CRPG based on 3rd Edition rather than AD&D.

 

eh..No. I found Baldur's Gate much easier to learn than Neverwinter Nights. Even with BG being party-based and NWN being with one PC. Regardless, playing a CRPG is not the same as playing PnP. The computer handles AoO for you. Honestly, have you ever GMed/played both tabletop 2ndEd and 3e?

 

You get brownie points if you have GMed/played Basic D&D.

Edited January 13, 2006 by Lancer

[Lancer 0]

3rd edition was the best thng that could happen to DnD.

 

And if the old codgers who are fixated on Thac0 don't like it... tough  (w00t)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have first hand experience with Basic D&D, 2ndEd, and 3e.

 

Darque, you don't even game. You just read the books. What are you talking about? lol

[Lancer 0]

I think that that has a lot to do with it.

 

Because a lot of the "oldies" were used to it, they see it as inferior.  And because all the nuances made sense to them with all of their experiences, they'd find it less intuitive as well.

 

 

Few people like change, especially if it's with a system they like.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah that's it..You figured me out. I am soooo old. I am a full 27 years old!

 

More likely, I think it is the newbies that never played any of the PnP versions of previous incarnations that get into 3rd edition and praise it just because that is the only thing they know. You can't blame them, though, they just don't know any better.

[alanschu 1,238]

Nonsense. All you have shown here is that the most basic of  3e rules are simple.

 

Pretty bad when the basic AD&D rules aren't as simple.

 

If you tell me that someone that has zero experience with D&D can grasp AoO with all its intricacies the very first time, I'd say you are lying. If you tell me that YOU got AoO the very first time with all its intricacies and exceptions I'd also say you are lying.

 

The fact that someone can understand the basic "gist" of AoO is not good enough. You need to know the details and specifics perfectly to be a good GM.

 

3e may seem simpler than 2ndEd but only at face value. The 3e game quickly rears its ugly head once you look at the rule specifics for both with its myriad number of unintuitive rules and game mechanics just to maintain game balance. Josh's mini-list barely scratches the iceberg.

 

If I ever had the inclination of going through my 3e manuals again and make a list of all the unintuitive rules in that system (1 buck for every rule) I'd be a millionaire. Learning 3e felt much like learning Chemistry. A system with simple mechanics on face value marred by overly complex nitpicky little rules and exceptions.

 

I've had an infinitely easier time getting people to understand the rules of a CRPG based on 3rd Edition rather than AD&D.

 

eh..No. I found Baldur's Gate much easier to learn than Neverwinter Nights. Even with BG being party-based and NWN being with one PC. Regardless, playing a CRPG is not the same as playing PnP. The computer handles AoO for you. Honestly, have you ever GMed/played both tabletop 2ndEd and 3e?

 

You get brownie points if you have GMed/played Basic D&D.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Probably not much of a surprise you found BG easier to learn, given how much knowledge you seem to have had about the 2nd edition rules. I'm talking about getting my friends, that have zero D&D knowledge, to play the game. It's not much of a stretch that people that played tons of AD&D found a game based around AD&D more intuitive. Which is exactly what I tried to highlight in an earlier post.

 

Also, I was under the impression that we were talking about CRPG games. I've exceptionally little experience in either game, PnP, because they don't particularly interest me. The explanations I was talking about were explaining people to play CRPGs based on D&D. Not one person I have ever explained BG2 or PS:T to has ever NOT said "That seems dumb" when explaining that better armor decreases your armor class and bonuses to your weapons decrease your THAC0.

[Darque 13]

3rd edition was the best thng that could happen to DnD.

 

And if the old codgers who are fixated on Thac0 don't like it... tough  (w00t)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have first hand experience with Basic D&D, 2ndEd, and 3e.

 

Darque, you don't even game. You just read the books. What are you talking about? lol

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't "game" currently.. that doesn't mean I haven't in the past on occasion.

 

Or did you think I started collecting pnp books just for fun?

[alanschu 1,238]

I think that that has a lot to do with it.

 

Because a lot of the "oldies" were used to it, they see it as inferior.  And because all the nuances made sense to them with all of their experiences, they'd find it less intuitive as well.

 

 

Few people like change, especially if it's with a system they like.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah that's it..You figured me out. I am soooo old. I am a full 27 years old!

 

More likely, I think it is the newbies that never played any of the PnP versions of previous incarnations that get into 3rd edition and praise it just because that is the only thing they know. You can't blame them, though, they just don't know any better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

If you're too dense to understand that my "oldies" comment had nothing to do with actual age, then I guess that explains a lot. Funny thing is, right afterwards you reaffirm the point I made, and you quoted.

 

AD&D may be better (at least in your mind), but don't even think about comparing its "intuitiveness." Especially not with your OWN experiences. You had already had experience playing the previous versions. A new version that is different is naturally going to seem less intuitive to someone that is intricately familiar with a previous version.

 

Take two people that have never played either version (or even seen D&D), and all else being equal, I guarantee that the guy playing 3rd Edition will be able to figure out way more stuff on his own, without much coaching at all.

 

It doesn't matter if you found it less intuitive....your expectations were already tainted the second you picked up a previous version of D&D.

[Judge Hades 0]

I started DMing in the days of the red book Dungeons and Dragons and I have to say the d20 System is a good system for PnP. It is easy to learn for newbies while let the vets strut their stuff. Also it is very maleable. Such as I could create an alien world in the Star Wars d20 and have some of the nasty critters in the Monster manual 3 be in it and do very little conversion.

[Darque 13]

Wow, Hades, you're kinda old ain'tcha? (w00t)

[GhostofAnakin 1,182]

Wow, Hades, you're kinda old ain'tcha?  (w00t)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kinda old? Larry King is kinda old. Hades is ancient. :D

[Judge Hades 0]

Been gaming for 22 years.

[alanschu 1,238]

Me too. And I'm only 24, almost 25.

[Darque 13]

Been gaming for 22 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Holy crap

 

From your posts I figured you were ONLY 22 or so

 

Whoa

[Judge Hades 0]

I am 33.

[Lancer 0]

Pretty bad when the basic AD&D rules aren't as simple.

 

If you have trouble counting down or subtracting single digit numbers, I can't help you there. Besides I can easily say the same thing that the only reason why you find a 3e CRPG easier than a 2ndEd one is because you are used to the fact that in most other console/PC RPGs ACs go up as they get better not down. Is it that surprising that you would find counting up more intuitive?

 

With that said, it is still a trivial matter to convert AC in 2ndEd to 3e style (just subtract from 20)so that you can count up or forego THACO completely if that is your wish.

 

 

Probably not much of a surprise you found BG easier to learn, given how much knowledge you seem to have had about the 2nd edition rules.

 

I read the 3e rules and played them and were fresh in my mind when I played NWN.

 

I found SPECIAL easy as heck to learn as well and I had never seen that system. And SPECIAL is very different from 2ndEd.

Most PnP rulesets that I have read have not given me much trouble at all.

 

It is called experience. And even with my experience learning 3e was a chore.

 

I'm talking about getting my friends, that have zero D&D knowledge, to play the game.  It's not much of a stretch that people that played tons of AD&D found a game based around AD&D more intuitive.  Which is exactly what I tried to highlight in an earlier post.

 

This is exactly what WotC claimed.. Almost certainly a marketing strategy to get more sales. I have yet to see the statistics.

 

Also, I was under the impression that we were talking about CRPG games.  I've exceptionally little experience in either game, PnP, because they don't particularly interest me.

 

 

Then you are not a valid authority to talk to me about rule systems. Don't talk about something you know nothing about. If you are not familiar with them then you are wasting your time.. as well as mine's.

 

Finally, you are basing your knowledge of rule systems and their "intuitiveness" based on certain cRPGS you played which aren't the best resource. They are not the best resource because believe it or not how intuitive a game feels need not be necessarily related to the ruleset in question but the capabilities of the programmer in making a user-friendly interface. Since these cRPGS are ultimately based on PnP rulesets, the PnP rulesets themselves are the final authority. Until you actually get the PHB and DMG for each edition and read them through (at the very least or even better play a few PnP sessions for both) you can't have an unbiased and informed opinion on the matter.

Edited January 14, 2006 by Lancer