Should I get the new addition? Is it better then the second addition? I don’t want to waste my money on something I’m going to not use. What are your opinions on it? Can I transfer characters?
Can you spell Edition? … just checking.
A friend of mine picked it up and is pouring through it now. Now that T$R is owned by WotC, it might get more on track.
Yes you should. It is a rare achievement: it streamlines gameplay while giving you more options on character development. To transfer characters, get the latest Dragon Magazine with the free Character generator CD. On the CD, it has a how-to convert from 2nd Edition .pdf file you can print out. I just DM’ed a game and combat went relatively smoothly.
You have skills and feats for each character class that you can utilize to customize your character.
The combat rules have been revised by those who have played Diablo and watched Jet-Li, Michelle Yeong, Jackie Chan and Lucy Lawless in action. With certain feats, your character’s combat abilities can be as fantastic as what you see in Once Upon a Time in China or Dragon Inn or Xena.
Best part of all, you can make your own magic items with the proper skills. It only cost you for the materiel required and some experience points. No aging, no learning permanency spells.
A tip: if you play a wizard, be a fighter first until 2nd level. Your character can cast spells while in armor, and can wield cool weapons. There’s also that 16+hit point head start you also get.
The spells from 2nd edition may be a little more difficult to convert.
There’s a chap by the name of JDeMobray who will no doubt quite shortly express some strong feelings about D&D Third Edition…
I played D&D once when I was in middle school. Three turns in, I was eaten by a giant rat.
I actually prefer reading the manuals, especially all of the neato spells.
I didn’t know 3rd Edition was out. I’ll have to browse it.
I suppose it really depends on whether you are a D&D fan, or just a general RPG fan.
The thing is, 3rd edition is so completely dissimilar to every previous edition of Dungeons and Dragon that it would be unfair to both games to compare them. Just don’t buy the book thinking that you already know how to play the game. The changes between Basic D&D, 1st Edition D&D, and 2nd Edition D&D were like repainting your house. 3rd Edition D&D is like bulldozing your house and building a new one in the same general shape.
3rd edition, IMHO of course, seems to have been designed more for easy translation into computer games than for long time paper and pencil gamers. The combat system has been substantially reworked, including a bunch of new elements (critical “threat ranges”, cyclical initiative, and goofy video game-like combat maneuvers like “whirlwind attack” and “bull rush”) that are, to me at least, of questionable value.
Despite the renewed focus on dungeon-crawling (also, not a good thing, IMHO) the book doesn’t at first, second, or third glance really seem to support a decent method of using miniatures in your games. The 2nd Edition system presented in either “Battlesystem: Skirmishes” or “Players Option: Combat and Tactics” blows away the vague poker chip token miniature system that they include in the Players Handbook.
The character classes, while still retaining the same names, have all been adjusted significantly. As capacitor mentioned, a wizard can now cast spells wearing armor, assuming he’s willing to take a crippling penalty to his skills and spellcasting while doing so. Fighters are no longer the best fighters (The returning Monk class ends up with more attacks per round, inflicting on average the same damage.) Thieves have been . . . fixed (in the veterinary sense) by forcing you to choose between having skills (old style Nonweapon Proficiencies), or being good at the thief abilities (Move silently, hide in shadows). Wizards, as was also mentioned can now create magic items pretty simply. WoTC/Hasbro has posted on their webpage and at GameSpy: PC Games, Reviews, News, Previews, Demos, Mods & Patches some of the costs. At one extreme, scrolls of Magic Missile are 12gp and 1xp to create. At the other extreme, be prepared to drop something like 2-3,000 xp when creating a particularly powerful magic sword or tome. (And prepare to explain to your Wizard character why after studying the arcane formulas, testing them, and finally putting them to work in a 12 day ritual, he comes out of the experience knowing less about magic than he did going in; possibly enough to drop him down to the next lowest level.)
Losing 3,000 xp wouldn’t be a big deal in 2nd or 1st edition, so I guess I should briefly try to explain the cluster-f*** of fractions, divisors, and sums that has become of the experience point system. First, understand that everyone now advances in level at the same rate. Paladins and Ranger and Fighters and Thieves and Wizards and everybody. Now, to determine experience you look at the monsters CR (Challenge Rating), then figure the average level of characters who defeated the monster; then cross index the party level with each opponent on the Single-Monster-Challenge-Rating table. Fourth, sum up the result from that table with the number of monsters in the encounter. Now divide again by the number of characters. There’s your final result. In theory, what this is supposed to do (and I’m quoting the book on this one) is “give the characters an extra level after roughly fourteen encounters.” I’m a little curious as to where they got the number 14 from, but not curious enough that I actually want to know.
Add to all this the sort of silly things that characters now do and use (“Inspire Competence”, “Dog, Riding”, and “Rebuke Undead”), coupled with the useful things that there aren’t rules for (create new spells, buying a pair of pants, or raise an army), with the not so good things that they have “restored” to the game (the monk class, anti-paladins, and barbarians) and you don’t really have Dungeons and Dragons anymore, at least not in the sense that Arenson and Gygax wrote back in the seventies. 3rd edition may be a good game on it’s own merits, but labeling it 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons is as much a misnomer as saying that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican (or Gore is a Democrat 
).
But the best part is its reduced cost. For only $17, it is absolutely worth it. I read the manual, but haven’t put enough players together to start a game. I am really looking forward to it, though.
Solid commentary above, by the way.
MR
Hey, I liked the “dog, riding”
It makes more sense for the, say, gnome & halfling characters than a pony, IM(NS)HO.
Overall, I liked the new system, but I think what you prefer is going to depend entirely on your style of gaming. 3E has certainly upset the min/max gamer in our group, since his character got much less powerful than when using Skills & Powers (remember, too, that S&P was not an edition of its own, but instead was intended to be an optional set of rules for 2E). Still, there is some silliness, but I have to admit that the change in things like ThAC0 and AC is useful for those of us who had difficulty figuring out just what we’d hit in 2E.
Give it a whirl, Goose, see if you like it. If you do, great, stick with it. If you don’t, simple, go back to what you were using.
Everybody’s different, after all.
Oh, there’s more information at About.com’s RPG site if you’d like a more detailed review.
I have to agree that calling it AD&D is really a bit of a misnaming. In many ways it fixes several of the problems of the original system, but then it turns around and guts the basic structure of the original game. I think it bears pointing out that WotC have many times called 3rd ed a roleplaying engine rather than a roleplaying game. The distiction is that 3rd ed’s basic structure is meant to be Fuzion or Masterbook like, and thus multigenre. Not a bad desire, but it really doesn’t fit with what D&D is.
So far from reading the PH, I’ve come under the impression that they are attempting to keep the ‘Epic’ genre feel of D&D, while making it more flexable (Though I see very few optional rule choices in the system, I prefer hometweaks, ick.) I do think that the new XP system is going to be a problem, esspecially with older GM’s, since it only really works if the XP rewards are less. I also dislike that many of the class restrictions were eased so much. And yes, the monk is over powered.
Oh, JDeMobray, enchanting an item can’t drop you in level. XP cost in spell casting can not cause one to drop levels, if your XP isn’t lvl+XP needed to cast, you can’t cast it. To an extent I agree with the reasoning, while you are making that sword, you aren’t adventuring, and the finer points of ones skills grow rusty rather quickly with disuse.
I feel the need to clarify. It isn’t AD&D anymore. It’s just D&D now; in that way perhaps we should be comparing this to the old boxed set? 
(don’t hurt me, I’m just a first level illusionist)
Erm, not trying to pick a nit in support of my post but it can drop you a level. Just not below the minimum level you need to create the item.
For instance, (and this is just off the top of my head) a third level Wizard creating a Scroll of Magic missile loses 3 xp. (Caster levelxSpell level) and 50 gp. Now, if you had exactly 3,002 xp. you would, at the end of the creation process, have 2,999 xp. and no longer qualify for 3rd level. The problem is increased when you are creating the higher level items. A 6th level character can very quickly find himself dropped back to 5th level when creating his Hackmaster +12 (or whatever) Sword with the Craft Magic Arms and Armor Feat.
And while I can see where their reasoning comes from on the xp loss (zombie voice:MUSSST BALANSSSE GAAAAME), I think that the extreme time requirements and rarity / unique nature of ingredients that existed in the older versions of the game balanced out the creation of items nicely. The only advantage I can see that doing away with that system granted was to allow (again) for easy conversion into computer games, where it would be next to impossible to program in all the side quests a charcter would need to make to gather item ingredients AND still tell the story.
As to the multi-genre nature of the game, I’m of the opinion that the Class/Level structure breaks many of the other settings you could port D&D into. The proposed Star Wars d20 system, which you can read about at this page already replaces hit points and changes two mechanics. Another site, (that I’ve lost the url for right now) proposes an Old West rpg with scary levels of damage from the guns rather than changing the hit points. Star Trek, even back in the days of Captain Kirk, as a third example was a show where most of the action was dealt with using non-combat skills (Sciences, Medical emergencies, Engineering problems, Diplomacy) with the occasional Judo Chop-fest thrown in at the end of the episode. D&D Star Trek would need not only reworked hit points and armor class (for ships and people both) but also a significant expansion of the skills and experience system.
The beauty of the Gurps, HeroSystem, and to a lesser extent Storyteller system, is that they all port quite easily between various genres and settings (Storyteller: Streetfighter RPG, anyone?) without changing the core mechanincs of the system. The d20 system, as currently written, is still tied very heavily into the Class/Level based game concept, rather than becoming more of a skill based system like the other successful multi-genre games. Hit points, while fine for epic heroism in the vein of Conan, Fafrd, and the Grey Mouser doesn’t really reflect the way that Wyatt Earp, Ripley, and American pilots in WW2 fight, as an example. I’m not saying these games will not sell; I have too much experience with the Geek consumer market to assume otherwise, I’m saying that although they will be huge sellers, the core mechanics of the game will not support what the source material really depicts.
dogsbody wrote:
But that’s impossible!
They didn’t have illusionists in the old D&D boxed set!!
– tracer, playin’ a psionic monk and a thief-acrobat just to piss off the 2nd Edition AD&D fans.
Well, I was worried about WoC, and rightly so. See, those guys are NOT D&D players, they play card games. They thought they had to “fix” the game, instead of just updating it. originally I was excited about the 3rd ed. I figured it was gonna take the kits, S&P, get rid of the loopholes & glitches, and come out with a 3rd ed. Nope. Here is how I look at it: AD&D 2ndED = ver 2.0
add the ToM= ver 2.1
add the Kit books= ver 2.5
add S&P = ver 2.8
So I was looking for ver 3.0. Instead they put out ver 5.0
It is no longer D&D. See, I can take a 1st Ed char, and play him in 2nd ed. I can even take a orig D&D char & play it in 2nd ED (with a few minutes tweaking). I can take a 1st ED and play it in ver 2.8. But I cannot take any D&D char & play in “3rd ED”, without lengthy conversions.
Well, i have been playing since 1972. Bought every damn “rulebook”, including the ripoffs “survival guides”, and the 2nd version of 2nd ED. I’m not converting, or buying it, cancelled my sub to Dragon, etc. There are about 2 dozen folks i play with (not all at the same time, but just had a get together with some 16of us, playing in 2 games). Only 2 of these 24 have bought, and NOBODY is converting.
They could have got us to buy into “ver 5.0” IF they had put out ver 3.0 & 4.0, putting many of the changes in gradually. But now they are stuck- most of the “old-timers” are not gonna convert, and it will be very hard to go back.
Well, I haven’t played it, but I have looked through the book while at a 2nd ed. game. 
So I reserve the right to correct any opinions later.
I’m amazed. It atually looks like a decent, well thought out gaming system. I haven’t looked deeply enough to figure out if it’s at all balanced, but it’s definatly a step in the right direction. And balance was never AD&D’s strong point. Looks like they’re looking more towards making things more ‘system’ based and less arbitrary. That is, that they’re trying to define the way things work in some kind of system, instead of just saying ‘X does X damage.’
Looks VERY much like a sort of GURPS derivitve, though with less tables. Even has GURPS/Fallout style ‘perks’. Would have perfered that they base it on Hero, but what can you do.
Now, what I can’t really evaluate is weither or not everything actually works. If the system is straightforward enough to be usable, and if there’s enough balance to make interesting characters playable. Would have to actually look through the classes and maybe even play a -gasp- actual game for that.
Though I can’t belive they actually made thieves weaker. They’ve gotten crappier and crappier since first edition. Or rather, everyone else has gotten better, while thieves haven’t.
Seemed pretty well organized, though, and art and general presentation were very, very good. It has one of those annoying faux tome border around each page, but aside from that, it’s proably the most attractive game book I’ve seen yet.
And that alone might be enough to make it successful. After all, I think white wolf pretty much proved that you don’t need a workable system or any kind of balance if you look good.
Yeah, I’m an RPG snob. Put on your fake fangs and bite me.
“Ahh! I fell on my 8 sided dice!”
JDeMobray: pg 151 Players Handbook; Components -
Now, if it is contradicted later in the book…well, that is what we have come to expect from D&D isn’t it? Also, I don’t consider a level attained until the character actually levels (We used the eight hour rule there, you had to have a good nights sleep to attain a new level.) If you met a wraith that got a lucky touch before you got the rest, well, tough cookies. This is to answer the part after the bolding.
Also, I agreed with you that the D&D base core concept doesn’t lend itself to other genre’s really. d20 needs a fair amount of work and become a system that can support classlessness before it can really be multigenre.
Narile - Here’s the thing: You are absolutely correct in your interpretation of the components description for spells. As part of the “streamlining” process, unfortunately, there are no longer any sort of required spells used when creating a magic item. When scribing a scroll, for instance, the wizard in question does not lose any spells from memory.
Danielinthewolvesden - I SO feel your pain. I am also a diehard D&D-er, owning more or less everything in print for 2nd edition (with a few exceptions that just sucked too bad for me to waste my $$ on) and having owned more or less every 1st edition product (until multiple moves finally made me sell the stuff I never saw myself using again). 3rd edition isn’t so much a slap in the face to us; in order to slap us the guys at WoTC would need to acknowledge that we exist. I would be even more offended if I was a Planescape or Ravenloft setting fan; in case you haven’t heard TSR basically took the last official 2nd Edition adventure they published “Die Vecna, Die” and blew up both of those campaign settings.
On the good side, Wizards has said that they are going to put up a whole ton of the out of print 2nd edition products up on their web page as free .pdf downloads. I would imagine that by the time they get around to it, they’ll want you to pay for them. But it will finally be a chance to read through “Hour of the Knife”, even if it does cost a $3.50.
Ultra-Maru - Yup, one of my computer gamer friends started making a list of Fallout/Fallout 2 to 3rd Edition comparisons the very night that I bought the book. It’s a pretty lengthy list. As to whether it works, it does. To my overly detailed mind, the game runs a little funny. I guess I’m too used to Combat & Tactics era D&D and Champions. But it does work fairly well, although watch for Monks at all levels, and Sorceror multiclass characters. They tend to play a little hard in a combat heavy game. One thought to improve the thief class, if you’re interested, might be to either a) expand the list of skills, giving thieves a bunch more class skills or b) allow old-school backstab multipliers instead of new Sneak Attack system.
Tracer - I love psionic monks, by the way. They react so well to my Acid Pit traps (Oh, so you’re not wearing much in the way of clothes or armor. . . .geez that’s too bad :D). Now the thief-acrobats out there are welcome in my game anytime they want.
Anyway, contrary to the impression I may be giving, there are some things that I like about 3rd edition. First, they removed the Demi-Human Level limits. I’m not sure if this is a good thing, or a great thing. Humans can now multi-class (which is an unqualified great thing) and are a bit more powerful than the demi-humans at 1st level. They really seem to have worked fairly hard on keeping the various races in balance (with the possible exception of Half-Orcs, but that’s a debate for a whole different message board.) I also appreciate that they tried to make the druid a viable class at long last. Still didn’t quite succeed, but hey give 'em credit for the effort.
Anyway, the first new set of contradictory interpretations (or as we D&D fans call them Supplements) is called The Hero Builder’s Guidebook. It’ll be out later this year. “Sword and Fist” should be the first Min/Maxer’s dream book; focusing on the severely underpowered (/sarcasm) monk and fighter classes due out at the beginning of next year. Right before the third new version of Psionic rules in the last 10 years, and another treatment of the Forgotten Realms in the spring.
JDeMobray, just checked on item creation, and it also does not allow the loss of a level due to item creation. pg 78 basically says the same thing as pg 151.
One thing I do like about 3rd ed…you can finally improve stats without magic.
You can’t hurt a first level illusionist, you can only kill him.
Lynn
Remind me to tell you about my centaur fighter-mage sometime…
Bah. Let me convert it to Hero for you. It’ll work better, make more sense, and it’s more flexible.
God, I sould like a linux fan, don’t I?
Thanks. Great secret identity I HAD, anyway.
Well, if you’re gonna steal from someone, it might as well be the best, huh? Now if I can only work out a way to cram A kiss to Build a Dream On into a game, it’ll be perfect.
Back when I was on my “lets make this game better” kick, I actually worked out a “new, improved” thief, as well as a workable and reasonably well researched Cyberpunk martial arts rules. I wonder where I put them . . .
Actually, if you just swap the Cleric and Thief THAC0 tables, it goes a BIG way towards balenceing them both. Though Thieves still get out-theifed by a third level mage. As the moblins say, grumble-grumble.
Now I just do it all in Hero, if I haven’t pointed that out yet. Course, had to change a couple of things, but not very many.
Or I would, if I ran a game anymore. All anyone else wants to run is D&D, so I take what I can get.
Do Monks have enough item usage penalties to concevibly balence out in the long run? Sort of like a Final Fantasy Black Belt? Of course, that kind of thing is pretty campaign dependant. The one thing I really dislike about AD&D is that it’s just too much based on “stuff,” if you know what I mean. Rings of Death Tolerance and all that. Is the Perk system ment to soften that, or replace it?
Sorceror, to me, seemes like a kludge, actually. They want to ditch thier old magic system, but don’t want to deal with arguments about why, so they’re just doing both at once.
That kind of sucks, actually. I was kind of hoping that they’d come out with a new “default” world. FR always seemed just way too goofy for me. In the sense that I could never really see it working as a “world,” just as a background for D&D games. And the “lets choose one god from each section of Ledgends and Lore” school of deity production just didn’t work at all.
I thought they might be reusing greyhawk, actually, which I always kind of liked. The default gods in the new PH are all greyhawk gods, arn’t they? Is greyhawk the default, and FR an alternate? (Like they tried to do with 2nd, really)
Actually, I think this is the fourth version of psionics, maybe fifth. Though the first two might be older than ten years. There was an ultra-cheesy one in 1st edition, 2 in second edition, (the psionic handbook one and the Skills&Powers one wern’t really compatiable) and now another. Is there some kind of by-law in the TSR charter that forces them to add psionics as a poorly thought out add-on to every game they do?
They’ve now got four different magic systems (Cleric, Mage, Sorcerer, and Psionic) in the same world. That worked great for Slayers, but I’m not sure it’s a good idea for a generic fantasy setting like base AD&D. Hmm. Black, Shaman/Elemental, White, and Holy. Ok, Slayers only gets four by splitting White magic into two parts. Some of the Final Fantasy’s had four, though. (White, Black, Call, Blue)
I can’t think of any actual fantasy novels that had more than 2 . . . Wait. The “Misenchanted Sword” world had four or five, didn’t it?
–
“Who is this mysterious stranger, with pecs like melons and knees of fringe?”