|
Post by Daos on Sept 30, 2006 15:59:51 GMT -8
You know, I've been reading up on 3rd Edition a little, and I have to say, talk about a huge mass of unnecessary classes. We have 9 classes in 2E (fighter, paladin, ranger, mage, specialist, cleric, druid, thief and bard) but in 3E they have...
11 core classes
39 'alternative' core classes
401 prestige classes (585 if you include the ones in Dragon Magazine)
Geez Louise! And 3E hasn't been around nearly as long as 2E was. And that number keeps going up with every new book they release.
I know the 3E'ers like their 'variety', but damn. Can you imagine sifting through all of those classes everytime you level up?
|
|
Shannon
Advanced
Firerain
Posts: 402
|
Post by Shannon on Sept 30, 2006 19:53:30 GMT -8
Dear Christ. And I thought I got overwhelmed with 2E.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Sept 30, 2006 19:55:04 GMT -8
Heh, heh. Back in the old days, with the original D&D, they had three classes. They were Fighting Man, Magic User, and Cleric.
|
|
Airellian
Elite
Sunny Greenhaven
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Airellian on Jan 21, 2007 8:00:52 GMT -8
They're not all in the same book, you know. I'm sure 2nd edition had hundreds upon hundreds of kits. It's just the publisher doing what it does best, writing more material so it can make more money.
I semi-dislike the cleric/priest. Probably because I'm always forced to play one. I remember the last four games with my friends, I ended up playing a cleric. That's why when I rolled that high stat in your last game in the WIS spot, I forcefully told myself, "No, no priests."
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Jan 21, 2007 10:46:18 GMT -8
True, but with kits, you pick one and stick with it. In 3E, you can change classes with each level. But it all adds up the same, I guess. I remember when 3E first came out, it's supporters always argued one of the selling points was there was no extra stuff--just the core PHB, MM, and DMG. Boy, that didn't last long. I actually like playing priests. I've only been a cleric once, and that was in Ice's campaign. Everyone just kind of saw me as a giant bandaid, as this visual aid shows:
|
|
|
Post by Mayor McCheese on Jan 25, 2007 22:39:06 GMT -8
I was introduced into D&D using 3e so i know alot about the game. Over the years i i found a few cross class combinations that make your character godly. For instance the cleric cross classed with monk. High WIS gives a bonus to cleric spells while the monk half gains a bonus to AC from WIS bonus aswell. Plus being a monk has it natural benefeits since at high enough lvls they become immune to all detrimental effects. At lvl 20 they change from humanoid to outsider which means if they die, they can never come back even with wish. As for clerics after 20 they pretty much have a few 9th lvl spells plus they get to choose Wrath, an epic spell which basicly casts a mini nuke around the caster.
If you've ever tried Neverwinter Nights online then you probably have seen wrath.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Feb 14, 2007 11:42:54 GMT -8
I personally feel they made it way too easy to multi-class in 3E. And there are way too many classes, as well. I rarely ever hear of a 3E game that's core only. So that leaves you with 600+ classes to choose from, and nobody ever just picks one.
Then again, I was never a fan of multi-classing. I've only had one multi-classed PC in my campaign (Lorne) and I've never played one myself. And you could probably count the number of multi-classed NPCs I've had on one hand. They just generally involved too much bookkeepping for me.
|
|
Airellian
Elite
Sunny Greenhaven
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Airellian on Feb 14, 2007 11:49:11 GMT -8
You make it sound like players have to sift through piles of crap to find that one class they want to play. In reality, they usually already have a concept in mind and just use the class to fit the concept. That narrows things down quite a bit. Also, not everyone has the cash or inclination to buy every single D&D book that comes out.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Feb 14, 2007 14:45:32 GMT -8
That's something else I don't like about it. The whole multi-classing thing has instilled this idea into new players that any concept they have for their character must be justified with a class feature. If your character grew up on the streets as a child, stealing bread to live--they NEED levels in Thief (err, I mean Rogue. Let's keep things PC here). If they know how to sing, they need levels in Bard. If they are the least bit religious, they need levels in Cleric or Paladin.
As for buying every book that comes out, you don't have to. You can use the SRD.
|
|
Airellian
Elite
Sunny Greenhaven
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Airellian on Feb 14, 2007 14:50:06 GMT -8
I don't follow the first paragraph, since I've never played in the way you suggest.
And anyway, the SRD only contains the core classes. Not the 500+ classes you were complaining about.
Also, I think I've realized the flaw in discussing a topic in which the opposite person only has second-hand knowledge in. How about we stick with 2nd edition?
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Feb 14, 2007 14:59:10 GMT -8
Nor do I. But the majority of players I have met at GitP and other websites have shown this preference. It's often one of their arguments on how 2E is too restricting on roleplay. "What if," they say, "my character is a fighter but then he is nearly killed in battle, and a cleric heals him? He may then convert to that cleric's god and start preaching the Good Word (TM) by taking levels of cleric. In 2E, this could only be done with the clunky dual-class rules, and only if he had the right stats and was human. Therefore, 2E is not as good as 3E."
Which of course, my counter-argument is why does a fighter need levels in cleric to be religious? Why can't he spread the good word anyway? Is there some rule that only those who can turn undead or Cure Light Wounds can have faith or preach to others?
Well, it doesn't contain ALL of them. But it does have the core classes, the NPC classes, and all of the prestige classes found in the DMG.
I'm allowed my opinion, Joe. Furthermore, I do not have to play the game extensively to hold that opinion, either. I may not know it as well as I know 2E, but I am not just spouting off random things I gleaned from others, too. I've done my homework.
|
|
Airellian
Elite
Sunny Greenhaven
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Airellian on Feb 14, 2007 15:05:57 GMT -8
I know you're allowed your opinion, David, but I can't help but feel that you let a certain bias creep in whenever you talk about 3rd edition. For example, most of your criticisms of the system stem not from the system itself, but from its players (character decisions) and the publisher (too many classes).
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Feb 14, 2007 15:19:41 GMT -8
It's true that when 3E was first released, my hatred was completely a knee-jerk reaction to something I didn't understand. I hated it because it was. All I knew is that elves could be paladins and that was enough.
But I have since researched it more thoroughly and I still dislike it intensely. The difference is, I now have justified reasons for it.
It's true that most of my complaints lie in the players' attitudes, but these attitudes are bred from the rules and suggestions written in the books.
For instance, most of the 3E'ers I've met are powerplayers. They put great emphasis on stats and ability scores. And it's very true that this was a problem in 2E, too. I know, I've met a couple. (Although granted, most of them were originally 3E players, now that I think about it...). Anyway, the difference is, 2E discouraged it and 3E encourages it. It's no surprise to me that 3E players put emphasis on stats when their own PHB says you are entitled to a reroll if your highest ability score is 13.
In contrast, 2E actually gives an example of how to play a character (in two different ways) with stats of 8, 14, 13, 13, 7, 6 (a build that many 3E'ers would insist is far too weak) and suggest that DM not allow rerolls unless the player actually cannot take any classes due to prime requirements (i.e., you roll all 8s or less).
Likewise, a number of 3E'ers I meet are also monty haulers. Again, this is more due to the rules in their books that anything else. In 3E, magical items are up for purchase and can be crafted right from the get go. In fact, the game automatically assumes (with its CR system) that the average party is carrying a certain amount of magical equipment with them when factoring in how hard a monster is.
This is what I mean when I say it's not so much the rules of 3E I don't like, it's the philosophies it teaches (whether intentionally or not). I once was reading through a 3E DMG and read such suggestions as giving your PCs magical tattoos that work just like magical items, but don't require recharging and can't be stolen or lost. Or if a player is continuously absent or tardy from the game, give him a few solo sessions to 'catch up.' I can't abide a game that encourages its DMs to compensate for bad players.
The fact is, I could probably learn to live with the idea of elven paladins or barbarian being a core class and half-orc being a core race. But the main reason I avoid 3E is what it essentially teaches its players and DMs.
|
|
Airellian
Elite
Sunny Greenhaven
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Airellian on Feb 14, 2007 15:34:05 GMT -8
Ah, now I see where you're coming from. But, I don't let those things bother me, because it doesn't affect how I run or play a game.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Feb 14, 2007 15:37:30 GMT -8
I know. Me, either. At least, not directly. I do run into problems sometimes when I have gamers join who grew up on 3E rules, though.
I guess I just really love D&D and I hate watching what it becomes.
|
|