Matt4
Paragon
Posts: 3,545
|
Post by Matt4 on Jul 17, 2023 11:20:26 GMT -8
Yay! We'll have a sequel to your culinary adventures!  |
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Jul 17, 2023 16:02:23 GMT -8
Maybe, but probably not for awhile. The book won't come out until November and my lease runs out in September.
But maybe some day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Jul 31, 2023 10:46:13 GMT -8
The newest Dragonlance book, the second of the new trilogy, drops tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Aug 16, 2023 7:15:29 GMT -8
I'm interested in both, I'm really enjoying 2E from Module Matine, so I want to take advantage of every chance to play it more I'm thinking either a mage or another priest for Renosia, and a fighter for DL I didn't want to derail the Interest Check thread so moved this over here, because I really wanted to ask: What do you like about 2E so far? I ask because I've been thinking of switching back to 2E full-time, and I've been trying to figure out how to make it more appealing to the 5E crowd, via house-rules and such. So any feedback on what a 5E'er finds attractive about it would be very valuable. |
|
Matt4
Paragon
Posts: 3,545
|
Post by Matt4 on Aug 18, 2023 11:29:57 GMT -8
Okay, I've finally a chance to sit in front of my pc and answer your question!
I'm still now sure if I like 2E or I just really like playing Kaelestia or the Module Matine format, but here's my opinion. Mostly I like the diversity of the options, I like how variegated the weapon system feels, especially comparing it to 5e (although I heard that now they will make a system more like the one in BG3, where every type of weapon has some different action available to it).
I loved studying the different type of specialy priests when choosing the deity for Kaelestia, the whole spheres system is super interesting and I think makes every ethos feels unique, while in 5e you get that handful of spells and a couple of abilities from your domain and that's it.
And, I've not experience with high-level play, but I feel like martials are very strong and have little to envy to spellcasters, especially in combat.
I also like all the little mechanics like henchmen (although I have yet to experience it first-hand), morale, etc.
Since we're talking about house rules, I wanted to propose one that's been in the back of my mind for a bit. As a cleric, I do feel that the game tries to pigeonhole me into a "healbot" role due to vancian casting. I'll elaborate: in 5e I never felt that being a healer compromised my ability to choose cool abilites when I wanted to, I usually prepare Healing Word and Cure Wounds and then I'm free to do whatever I want with my remaining memorized spells. But in 2E whenever I have to choose my memorized spells for the day, I always feel compelled to prepare a few Cure X Wounds (which usually amounts to 50% or close of my memorized spells) because..well, I'd feel pretty shitty if someone needed urgent healing and I, as a cleric, wasn't able to do so.
So, taking ispiration from the pf Kingmaker game I'd like if clerics, or at least the ones with access to the Healing sphere, could turn a memorized spell into a Cure X Wounds of the appropriate level. Like, if Kaelestia had Faerie Fire, Entangle, and Light prepared but needed to heal someone, she could decide to turn the Entangle spell in a Cure Light Wound one.
This could also help with something else I found a little boring for 2E: slow natural healing. Any unused spell could be turned into healing at the end of an adventuring day, so at least this could speed things up when the party needs to stop for a few days just to heal up.
|
|
|
|
Post by GravityEmblem on Aug 18, 2023 12:40:05 GMT -8
What, like 3.5E?  {Filibuster on the 2E Rules}From my perspective, the biggest issue with 2E is that it’s very inflexible. 5E has a very simple system for seeing if an idea you want to try works: the DM sets the difficulty and what bonuses apply, and then you roll. Your class abilities all assume that’s how it “works,” and give you powers built around that assumption. So if you understand the basic premise of the system, you understand how to use your abilities. And if you try to do something the book doesn’t expect, the DM can just use the core mechanic of rolling a d20.
2E isn’t like that. Each ability is its own separate mechanic. Rolling initiative is its own mechanic, attack rolls don’t work the same way as NWPs, which aren’t the same as your special Thief abilities…the upside is that it can make certain abilities feel special and unique. I happen to really like the way that Mages and Bards learn spells. It can be annoying when you don’t get the spells you want, but it also makes learning a spell feel special and rare.
On the downside, it can make it all your abilities feel confusing. And more to the point, it makes it much harder to adapt to situations that you or the rules don’t expect.
I mean, just as an example, let’s say Jane the Fighter wants to climb up a rock wall in a dungeon. She’s not a Thief, so she can’t do the percentage thing. Does she roll against her Strength score? If so, does she get some sort of penalty? Does she want to roll high? Roll low? What kind of die does she roll? I don’t know the answers to those questions, and since there’s a bunch of conflicting precedents, there’s no easy answer. I don’t know what to expect if I want to try it, and I don’t have a sense of how likely I am to succeed. And because I don’t, I’m less likely to try it.
So, if you want house rule suggestions that would make ME happier, standardize some of these systems. Like, pick a couple important ones and change the others to match. E.g., make initiative a d20 that you want to roll high on like attack rolls. Make the Thief abilities d20s that you want to roll low on like NWPs. I don’t know, maybe that’s a heretical suggestion to 2E players, but it would help my understanding of the game a lot more. EDIT: I suddenly thought better of posting that big filibuster. I've left it behind for posterity, but you should take all of its contents with a grain of salt. Because, uh, I realized that I've never actually read the 2E rulebook. I was just assuming all the rules based on what I knew about it and about 5E. And that 90% of my confusion is literally because I never made the effort to understand the rules. So...............sorry I guess?? |
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Aug 18, 2023 14:35:45 GMT -8
I'm still now sure if I like 2E or I just really like playing Kaelestia or the Module Matine format, but here's my opinion. Mostly I like the diversity of the options, I like how variegated the weapon system feels, especially comparing it to 5e (although I heard that now they will make a system more like the one in BG3, where every type of weapon has some different action available to it). I loved studying the different type of specialy priests when choosing the deity for Kaelestia, the whole spheres system is super interesting and I think makes every ethos feels unique, while in 5e you get that handful of spells and a couple of abilities from your domain and that's it. Yes, the diversity is what I miss most about 2E. I think it comes down to 'balance.' 2E's definition of balance is 'give and take.' For every bonus, a penalty. For every benefit, a hindrance. For every positive, a negative. So this race will give you a bonus to STR but...you suffer a penalty in INT. Or this weapon does large amounts of damage but...it's very slow. This class starts out super weak, but if you survive and persevere, it will become the most powerful. And so on. Whereas 5E's definition of balance is 'all things equal.' No option should be clearly superior or inferior to another. But this creates a strong sense of homogeneity. Every race feels the same. Every class, every spell, etc. It's a large part of what's soured me on 5E in general. And, I've not experience with high-level play, but I feel like martials are very strong and have little to envy to spellcasters, especially in combat. Yep, that plays into what I said above. Martials start out strong, but they eventually get outpaced by the casters. Casters generally start out weak, but grow exponentially in strength. But what I like most is that regardless of high or low level play, they need each other. Even a 15th level wizard can be taken down by chucking rocks at them. Martials protect the casters; they are essential. Since we're talking about house rules, I wanted to propose one that's been in the back of my mind for a bit. As a cleric, I do feel that the game tries to pigeonhole me into a "healbot" role due to vancian casting. I'll elaborate: in 5e I never felt that being a healer compromised my ability to choose cool abilites when I wanted to, I usually prepare Healing Word and Cure Wounds and then I'm free to do whatever I want with my remaining memorized spells. But in 2E whenever I have to choose my memorized spells for the day, I always feel compelled to prepare a few Cure X Wounds (which usually amounts to 50% or close of my memorized spells) because..well, I'd feel pretty shitty if someone needed urgent healing and I, as a cleric, wasn't able to do so. So, taking ispiration from the pf Kingmaker game I'd like if clerics, or at least the ones with access to the Healing sphere, could turn a memorized spell into a Cure X Wounds of the appropriate level. Like, if Kaelestia had Faerie Fire, Entangle, and Light prepared but needed to heal someone, she could decide to turn the Entangle spell in a Cure Light Wound one. This could also help with something else I found a little boring for 2E: slow natural healing. Any unused spell could be turned into healing at the end of an adventuring day, so at least this could speed things up when the party needs to stop for a few days just to heal up. Yes, this is an issue that always existed in 2E. Every class fills a role, an archetype, and there is a lot of pressure to do so. "New guy has to play the healer," was a common phrase back in the day (the idea being it was an unpleasant role nobody wanted, so it was foisted on the newbie). 5E tried to solve this issue by basically removing all the roles, save damage dealer. Now every class is a damage dealer. They made everyone beefier, so tanks aren't necessary. They gave everyone healing (short rest HD) and made it easier to recover (full HP on a long rest), so healing isn't essential. This solves the problem for anyone who does not like playing support roles--now they don't have to. Kind of sucks for those of us who enjoy playing support roles, like me, though. (And another thing that soured me on 5E.) In 2E, healing is pretty much required. Sure, you can go without, but recovery is long and slow, and death is far more likely. Horizon ran into the same issue in Past Glory. She played a Druid, and basically had to focus on healing everyone. I think that's why she went with a Priest of Sargonnas in Module Matinee; they cannot heal, and so there is no need for her to worry about it. Traditionally, the main way around it is just wait until you can recruit a healing henchman, and then make them the healbot. (Also, fight more cautiously and don't rush into every battle you can ) Your idea, as Gravity pointed out, was 3E's solution. And I'll think about it. But part of the strategy of the game is trying to decide which spells to prepare that day. I wouldn't want to remove that entirely. Also, keep in mind that the classes in Tales of the Lance are kind of wonky to begin with. The Priest of Chislev class is basically just the Druid but with all the best class features stripped out and replaced with a couple of new spheres. I have no idea what the thinking was behind that. But anyway, my own specialty priest classes will be a little different. I like giving them all sorts of granted powers and new abilities to really make them feel unique to each other. From my perspective, the biggest issue with 2E is that it’s very inflexible. 5E has a very simple system for seeing if an idea you want to try works: the DM sets the difficulty and what bonuses apply, and then you roll. Your class abilities all assume that’s how it “works,” and give you powers built around that assumption. So if you understand the basic premise of the system, you understand how to use your abilities. And if you try to do something the book doesn’t expect, the DM can just use the core mechanic of rolling a d20. {Spoiler}2E isn’t like that. Each ability is its own separate mechanic. Rolling initiative is its own mechanic, attack rolls don’t work the same way as NWPs, which aren’t the same as your special Thief abilities…the upside is that it can make certain abilities feel special and unique. I happen to really like the way that Mages and Bards learn spells. It can be annoying when you don’t get the spells you want, but it also makes learning a spell feel special and rare.
On the downside, it can make it all your abilities feel confusing. And more to the point, it makes it much harder to adapt to situations that you or the rules don’t expect. I'd argue 2E isn't inflexible; sort of the opposite. The game is built on the idea that the DM can modify, ignore or even make up whatever rules they want. The entire system is incredibly modular, which is what makes it easier to change; that's why so many mechanics are different from each other. For instance, don't like the NWP system? Rip it out. It's fine, it's optional anyway. 2E was very much built on the idea of 'rulings, not rules.' 3E took the opposite approach, where everything needed to be codified and clear. It's when the expression 'RAW' was first coined. But before that, Rule 0 was the only one needed. 5E is far more unified, and that does make it easier to understand. But the downside is that it's all sort of bound up together, so that changing anything is very difficult. Don't like Bounded Accuracy? Too bad, it's basically baked into the entire game and ripping it out is no easy task. This is another thing that soured me on 5E. I'd come across something I didn't like and would try to think of how to house rule it away. And realized I couldn't, not without rewriting mass swaths of the entire game. (Another issue is the game culture. It was assumed that a 2E game would be heavily house ruled--they all were. Almost nobody played the game by the book exactly. In 5E, it's assumed that anything in the books is canonical law, and players bristle if you dare try to change them.) The plus side of 2E's way of doing things is...it's not really necessary to understand the mechanics. For instance, Horizon has been gaming with me for 17 years. That's nearly 2 decades! And to this day, she could not explain to you how THAC0 works if her life depended on it. And it's not because she's too dumb to understand it, or the mechanic is just too complicated to be understood without an advanced math degree. It's just that...well, she never needed to understand it. She rolls a d20. I tell her if she hits or misses. In 2E, it's assumed players will just ask the DM what they can and can't do. Can my character leap off the balcony, grab the chandelier and swing across the foyer, slamming feet first into the ogre's face? Up to the DM. What is needed to do that? A DEX check? Again, up to the DM. Even if that was something codified into the game, it's perfectly acceptable to ask the DM, "Hey, how does that work again?" I mean, just as an example, let’s say Jane the Fighter wants to climb up a rock wall in a dungeon. She’s not a Thief, so she can’t do the percentage thing. Does she roll against her Strength score? If so, does she get some sort of penalty? Does she want to roll high? Roll low? What kind of die does she roll? I don’t know the answers to those questions, and since there’s a bunch of conflicting precedents, there’s no easy answer. I don’t know what to expect if I want to try it, and I don’t have a sense of how likely I am to succeed. And because I don’t, I’m less likely to try it. Ironically, that is something codified into the game. In the PHB, Chapter 14 (Time and Movement) under the Climbing section on page 122. An unskilled climber (that is, a non-thief with no mountaineering proficiency) has a base 40% chance of success of climbing a wall. Other factors can change this, such as abundant handholds, using a rope, what kind of armor the climber is wearing, their race, if they are injured, if they are encumbered, if the surface is slippery, etc. So the DM would add up any modifiers and the player would roll a 1d100, trying to get under the target number, just as a thief would with the Climb Walls ability. But again, it's fine if you didn't know that. You could always just ask. So, if you want house rule suggestions that would make ME happier, standardize some of these systems. Like, pick a couple important ones and change the others to match. E.g., make initiative a d20 that you want to roll high on like attack rolls. Make the Thief abilities d20s that you want to roll low on like NWPs. I don’t know, maybe that’s a heretical suggestion to 2E players, but it would help my understanding of the game a lot more. I'll consider it. I wouldn't want to fully adopt a full d20 system, because the downside to unified mechanics is they become less modular. But turning a d100 into a d20 isn't too hard. A 40% chance on a d20 is 8 or less, for instance. So it could be theoretically done. EDIT: I suddenly thought better of posting that big filibuster. I've left it behind for posterity, but you should take all of its contents with a grain of salt. Because, uh, I realized that I've never actually read the 2E rulebook. I was just assuming all the rules based on what I knew about it and about 5E. And that 90% of my confusion is literally because I never made the effort to understand the rules. So...............sorry I guess?? And that's fine. Like I said, it's not necessary to know the rules inside or out. I've played with people who have memorized the books backwards and forwards, and I've played with people who have probably never cracked even the PHB before. It all works out the same, since even the stuff in the books isn't necessarily law. The truth is, there's no way to fix one problem without creating another to replace it. That's why there is no perfect system. 5E sure tries to be, which is why I find it so bland and homogeneous. I'm sure there's a balance to be struck, however, between 5E's homogeneity and 2E's slap-dashed approach. |
|
|
|
Post by GravityEmblem on Aug 18, 2023 15:36:32 GMT -8
Yeah, I straight-up don’t feel the same way as you. I could probably argue with you about this for hours, but I don’t think that would be worthwhile. It just boils down to the fact that I like 5E and you don’t; you like 2E and I don’t. (Still going to play Renosia, though ) |
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Aug 18, 2023 16:12:24 GMT -8
Sure. It all boils down to taste and preference. And I'm not here to evangelize or to argue (although I'm more than happy to debate, it's a subject I enjoy talking about). I'm just hoping I can find enough people to game with. The whole reason I started running 5E is that 2E was so outdated, the pool of people who still played it or were willing to try it had diminished to almost nothing. (Plus, communities dedicated to old school gaming have a real Nazi problem, so I tend to avoid them anyway.) So when I decided I wanted to return to 2E, it was something I was very aware of--that finding new people would be difficult.
I actually found a 5E community recently and polled them on what they like or dislike about 2E, and as it turns out...none of them knew anything about it. I guess it's now so old that it's passed out of the community's collective consciousness altogether. (And I'm even older than 2E...hmm...).
Anyway, ironically enough, 5E, or at least the version I run, is also out of date now. I'm still pre-Tasha's. But soon even post-Tasha's will be obsolete when 5.5E comes out, or 5E 2024, or whatever name they finally decide to stick with in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by GravityEmblem on Aug 18, 2023 17:25:59 GMT -8
To be fair, Tasha’s is a pretty controversial sourcebook, and I think a LOT of the 5E fan base isn’t keen on the One DND thing. (Though WotC’s business escapades haven’t helped that…) I don’t feel like 5E’s ideal of balance makes it dull and homogenous if you mostly use the PhB, but each sourcebook has pushed it closer and closer to that amorphous blob you describe. That’s why I mostly stick to PhB and some Xanathar, along with my homebrew, for the 5E games I run. Plus, I’m planning on trying out some house rules unless my new players really don’t want to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Aug 18, 2023 18:04:29 GMT -8
I don't know, Tasha's has seemed pretty popular to me, from what I've seen so far. But yeah, nobody really seems to care about the new edition. I mentioned before, but I joined a 5E community (well, it's not a 5E community per se, it's a community with a lot of 5E fans in it, though), and they all love 5E and all talk a lot about 5E, but nobody among them is talking about One D&D/5.5/5E2024 at all. Even when a big UA drops, it's nothing but crickets. I'm not even sure if any of them are following it at all.
It'll be fascinating to see what happens when it does come out next year. Will the community splinter? Will they convert? It's still hard to say at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by GravityEmblem on Aug 18, 2023 18:24:07 GMT -8
I’m not sure I can speak for the community as a whole, but I know I’m going to keep running 5E my way, and I don’t think I’ll have trouble finding people who are interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Igordragonian on Aug 19, 2023 11:21:54 GMT -8
I enjoy 2e- maybe mostly out of nostalgia.
I mostly enjoy the dynamic intative.
I remember really intense battles, when DMing to my players.
Also, what ever you get- it feels.. earned.
The only thing, I dont feel confident to run 2e to people outside my original group, because we used to "wing it" a lot, preffering to solve rule questions quickly.
Actually, they were more exprienced then me, and the books have belonged to them.
And they didnt allowed me to open the book during sessions.
5e is simple, and even if I can get some rules wrong, I feel less nervouse to DM it.
Also, I am soft hearted DM, in 2e it was lot of
"sorry guys...."
If I was younger, I would have invested time tomaster the rules of 2e enough to guide others.
5e for better or worse, is easy.
|
|
Matt4
Paragon
Posts: 3,545
|
Post by Matt4 on Aug 19, 2023 14:56:49 GMT -8
In 2E, healing is pretty much required. Sure, you can go without, but recovery is long and slow, and death is far more likely. Horizon ran into the same issue in Past Glory. She played a Druid, and basically had to focus on healing everyone. I think that's why she went with a Priest of Sargonnas in Module Matinee; they cannot heal, and so there is no need for her to worry about it. Traditionally, the main way around it is just wait until you can recruit a healing henchman, and then make them the healbot. (Also, fight more cautiously and don't rush into every battle you can ) Your idea, as Gravity pointed out, was 3E's solution. And I'll think about it. But part of the strategy of the game is trying to decide which spells to prepare that day. I wouldn't want to remove that entirely. Also, keep in mind that the classes in Tales of the Lance are kind of wonky to begin with. The Priest of Chislev class is basically just the Druid but with all the best class features stripped out and replaced with a couple of new spheres. I have no idea what the thinking was behind that. But anyway, my own specialty priest classes will be a little different. I like giving them all sorts of granted powers and new abilities to really make them feel unique to each other. Yeah, the point about fighting more cautiosly was basically the main advice I found on the Dragonfoot when searching for answers on how one could prepare better for a fight on 2E.."Avoid it" lol I think it's a solid advice and you can see I think that Kaelestia usually offers less violent approaches for this exact reason. I know that chosing which spells to prepare for the day is a challenge in itself, but I don't think with this rule you'd remove it entirely. You still need to chose among all the other spells which one would be more useful, you'd only not have to think about the healing part. It would make the cleric role less taxing and more appealing for people (especially if you want to appeal 5e people, that as you said are used to have more versatile characters). Yeah, Tales of the Lance are a bit weird. I remember thinking the priests of Zivilyn (I think was him) were really weak. Super high requirements to choose the ethos, poor combat abilities, few spheres available and no abilities of note, if I remember correctly. I don't mind Chislev's but I wish they could have kept the wild shapes at least, that's the main gripe I have with it. But I like the added versatility of the extra spheres. |
|
Matt4
Paragon
Posts: 3,545
|
Post by Matt4 on Aug 19, 2023 14:59:56 GMT -8
I don't know, Tasha's has seemed pretty popular to me, from what I've seen so far. But yeah, nobody really seems to care about the new edition. I mentioned before, but I joined a 5E community (well, it's not a 5E community per se, it's a community with a lot of 5E fans in it, though), and they all love 5E and all talk a lot about 5E, but nobody among them is talking about One D&D/5.5/5E2024 at all. Even when a big UA drops, it's nothing but crickets. I'm not even sure if any of them are following it at all. It'll be fascinating to see what happens when it does come out next year. Will the community splinter? Will they convert? It's still hard to say at this point. My problem with 1DnD or whatever (leaving out the whole OGL fiasco) is that it didn't really feel much different from 5e, and yet most of the differences that were actually there felt worsening of 5e stuff lol but yeah, after the first couple of UAs I completely stopped reading about it (same for all my dnd friends), so Idk where they are at right now. |
|
