The third edition rules

[Orry]

Do you really think the third edition rules are perfect? Yes, you can change your combat-weak mage into killing machine barbarian, but it is opposite everything I know about the world of fantasy! If I start as a mage, I will also finish as a mage(=cut to pieces by somebody who resisted my spells). What will be next? Maybe dragons without the ability to fly, breathe or vegetarian ones?
I am looking forward to your opinions.

[Darthiir]

There are two kind of people.

1) The ones that have a philosophy and a way of life and do not leave the path that their beliefs lead them
2) The ones that want everything and would step over dead bodies to achieve it.

If you look arround, you will find out that over half and much more (to my estimation 70 to 80%) of the people belong to the second kind. That is exactly why TSR (or WoC), whose moto is "the more players, the most money" (belonging to the second kind also) desided to destroy the philosophy of RPG and construct the 3rt edition rules to allow people that play RPG to gain even the highest inate ability they need: Thermonuclear explosion.

But I passed the test. I will leave this world with my people, going far to the isle of Evereska.

[Callum Kerr]

Of course the third edition rules aren't perfect! There is only one perfect thing in this world and guess who I nominate for that award... (bearing in mind that i am a conceited asshole)

But I like the third ed rules, much better than 2nd ed...
You could turn a mage into a fighter in second ed too couldn't you?
And if you mean Tenser's transformation, that is mentioned in a book... the legacy of the drow - Passage to Dawn - by salvatore...

[Callum Kerr]

OH! Welcome to Ironworks

[Weebl]

well I say the 3d rules is better in a gameplay view since u have more options when u creat a party

[Luvian]

The 3rd edition rules are more realistic, and have something that 2nd didn't have: Versatility and freedom.

Why could someone who learned magic not be able to spend a few months and also learn to use an axe? What if he was saved from an awful death by a cleric, and out of duty, decided to learn more about the way of the priest? Should he not be able to learn new things because he learned magic when he was young? Does the fact that you learned to play basketball prevent you from learning baseball, too? No. We keep evolving all the time, we are not stuck in a life dictated by a few choices we did years ago.

Rules does not help Roleplay, it kill it. The more freedom you have, the more original you can be.

Also, dragons who can't fly, or use a breath weapon, already exist in the 2nd edition, and a vegetarian Dragon would be hilarious. A good Dm could base a whole campaign around that.

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Darthiir: There are two kind of people. 1) The ones that have a philosophy and a way of life and do not leave the path that their beliefs lead them 2) The ones that want everything and would step over dead bodies to achieve it. If you look arround, you will find out that over half and much more (to my estimation 70 to 80%) of the people belong to the second kind. That is exactly why TSR (or WoC), whose moto is "the more players, the most money" (belonging to the second kind also) desided to destroy the philosophy of RPG and construct the 3rt edition rules to allow people that play RPG to gain even the highest inate ability they need: Thermonuclear explosion. But I passed the test. I will leave this world with my people, going far to the isle of Evereska.

How are more open ended rules destroying the philosopy of roleplaying? Are you saying that people who like versatily are something less that people who are single minded?

[Draten-Master of Fire and Ice]

Howdy all,

I have played D+D with every set of rules and under many different conditions and if there is one thing I have learned throughout it is that players who learn to adapt, to roll with the punches, live...those who don't end up spending the bulk of their time creating new characters. Give 3E a chance I was extremely put off by many of the changes from 2E to 3E, but now I enjoy playing under 3E rules...

"We fear change"--Garth Algar

[Darthiir]

No offence.
I just ment that most of the players like 3rd ed. because the make some of everything. I personaly did not do it to my char's even when I played 3rd ed. A char like the once that are called "adventurers" DO NOT like much changing course of action. That is why when they do, they do not going back to the original class (2nd ed. dual classing). And the philosophy and way of life of non humans do not allow then to change courswe of action (so that is why they have the initial multiclassing and no other change)

I do believe that 2nd ed. rules needed a little bending (as a DM/GM I always bent the rules) but I do not like the freedom 3rd ed. gives. I also do not like the time needed for each combat round to be completed. 2nd ed. was much better leaving more time to role playing that calculating to hit and dammage roles.

I speak from the original game point of view, of course, and not for computer RPG's

[Redblueflare]

Hmm... I must admit I *hated* the 3rd edition rules when I first started. But i'm beggining to warm up to them. Does it matter that a mage can use any weapon he/she pleases? Despite the weapon they're still not going to be very effective with it. I don't dual class my characters so I could care less about being able to go back to a previous class. That is more realistic though, an adventurer can and probably will pick up diffrent skills. So overall I like em, although the saving throw system is somewhat unbalanced. [img]tongue.gif[/img] To me anyway, and I won't use them in Pnp, until I understand the rules well enough.