We DO have a place for saying hello. It is in the New Orleans Gaming Connection - General Board.

Dav, if you go put him in the right place.

Thanks for saying hello. And no. No one plays AD&D. At least I have not heard of it in 6 years.

Everyone has house rules to fix the things they don't like but I don't know of anyone whose stuck with AD&D.   D20 is just a better system than AD&D.....   IMHO of course.   The only argument I can see not to switch is the money investment in new books.   I've seen lots of people who prefer 3.0 over 3.5 and of course, 4.0 is coming.   Most of the real gaming geeks I know switch to GURPS or HERO if they can't deal with D20.

Reino has complained once or twice that he'd like to be a player again, for the novelty of it.  I'm not so sure he'd want to give up control though.    I don't think I could deal with AD&D if only because I like the electronic character builders (as flawed as they are) and I don't know of one for AD&D, or D&D, or chainmail.

Hey guys,

First of all, my fault entirely, I thought it was under the general forum, mis-click on my part. My apologies of it.

Its seems thats the theory of people not really liking the AD&D system, but I have heavily modified my version of it. But of course thats not neither here nor there because everyone has their opinions of what they like and not like.

For example my reasons why I dislike 3.5:

1) The leveling system - It makes no logical sense why a starting wizard and a starting thief to reach level 2 only need 1k experience. A wizard has more to do then a thief regarding if they learn more or less. The actually experience table in itself is completely flawed, but again that is only my opinion.

2) The fact that someone could switch a class so easily when leveling. Level 1 your a fighter and then level 2 you think well i think I'll be a cleric. That turned me off completely to 3.5 mainly because there should be some work involved to gain another class no matter the race you are. In my AD&D sessions, if you wish another class then you spend experience of your current class to gain a new class, also there must be a foundation to why you want another class. Wanting to learn and expand you has a character is a very valid reason, but of course more flare can be added to the explaination of adding another class.

3) The actually system itself seems to take the role playing out and have mainly/primarily hack and slash. Character creation shouldn't be randomly generated in a program. Some thought and work and of course fun goes into making your character you wish to play. Your character is an extension of yourself, and should reflect who you are. So if you just create the character and want to start rolling damage and taking away hit points, it seems to be rather the same and dull.

Now of course every game is different, some DM's love to roleplay and have fun and joke around. That I believe is the sole purpose of gaming.

Those reasons listed above are my own opinions as to why I dislike 3.5. But of course another big reason is over the years I have purchase pretty much over 2 grand worth of AD&D books, and they have been used in many many campaigns over the years and many more to come. Do I really want to spend more money for a totally new version, of course my answer to that is no. Of course I still look to purchase AD&D stuff, so I will more then likely be willing to take any off your hands if you have anything good of course

Sean

Hey again,

I have a few comments to the post, so bare with me a bit

"I feel that the rogue is supposed to learn just as much as the wizard does, but in the form of stealth and combat. “SUPPOSED”. Because of the lack of balance in the system, I would say that this is not the case. But I find it romantic to think that there is just as much to learn in a pure fighter type class, as there is in an INT based class. I good example of this would be Drizt’s description in the books."

Of course its right to think about ones profession, as romantic, you pretty much put your heart and soul into a character who his/her creation and yet playing style. I mainly disagree with the fact of every class and race going off the same chart as far as experience goes. Mainly because everyone can steal, just depends of your level of knowledge. However "learning" a spell takes not only time but thinking upon the wizards part. I believe a wizard is more indepth only because of his field. However a rouge/thief/assassin/monk/priest/fighter and so on, again each have depth or shallowness, hence each should have there own experience chart to reflect their own growth.

"Well you are right and wrong. There is more WORK worked into the game for multiclassing. 
____________
It's a 20% xp penalty per class, provided those classes are more than 1 level below your highest class level. There are two exclusions:
* Favored class (the character's highest class level in the case of a Half-Elf or Human) is not counted.
* PrCs aren't counted.
_____________ "

See these statments do prove my point. There is no "work" for the character his/herself reguarding the class exchange. You choose what you wanna be and thats it, your it. A character who was raised as a hunter, to later become a ranger or fighter, who have no knowledge what so ever for casting wizard/arcane spells. There should be some game time to "open" that up for the character.

"The reason it is easy to go from 1 level of fighter into 1 level of cleric is because if you want to grow your character into a 10 cleric, 10 fighter, that should be possible if conceived from the start.  There is NO 50% fighter, 50% cleric class to start with, if there was then a character should be about to play it with out more “work”. The assumption made by the good player and the good DM, is that your are already devoted religiously, and the fighter level is just what you started out as."

I agree with only part of that. In a since you are still only a 50% cleric and a 50% fighter, compared to other party members due to the fact you are level 2 and only half of what you could be. In the AD&D system, it defines it more, a character is a level 1 cleric AND a lvl 1 fighter, which the character is not a level 2 character, each with there own experience table to show how their there growth in that profession/prayer/style.

"This is a roleplaying issue. And 3.5 is not responsible for it."

Actually the system made it EXTREMELY easy to add a profession. It the easiest system I have seen reguardless of games out there. But it is limited.

"I agree and disagree. 3.5 in my opinion is only required to be a form of physics and flavor for a world (hack and slash physics). The roleplayers are completely responsible (IMO) for the roleplaying. The system should make no playing requirements. Indeed 3.5 makes even more then my tastes; calling such spells evil, calling such classes as either inherently lawful, or chaotic. Crap like that."

I think we missed each other here. You seen the style between AD&D and 3.5 is "almost" the same. Take into effect - you still use a D20 for your roll to hit, each weapon still has its own damage ranging from 1D4 - 1D10. Even spells still share the damage dice, depending on the spell of course. Also the actually spells being good or evil should no be the question solely for the fact of my following example. Fireball in itself is a destructive spell, not really good or evil. A fireball spell could be casted to lay waste to a group of orcs advancing on you. The fireball spell could also be used to clear out peasants in a crowded market village. The spell in question is neither good nor evil, it depends how the character uses it. So just because spells have a good or evil "label" doesn't really mean that spell is evil or good, it all depends how it is used.

"Quite right if you mean the play cares not what class race, personality, fighting style, the program chooses for them. But if a program existed only to build the characters physics to allow you not to bother with the “rule” then I have no problem with it."

See again, I think we missed each other here. I personally love to see a character being created from scratch. By that I mean not rolling the dice for your stats. My games include that for players who wish to just start out and begin play. However on the flip side, there is a specialized way of creating a character. For example, the decisions you make in your childhood could benefit/hender your decisions as an adult. It would be best to explain lower then average stats, or higher then average stats.

"Perhaps for you and many other it is. I and many other prefer our character to be nearly completely uncharacteristic of ourselves. This is sort of a method acting exercises to live and breath in a mind that is not our own, and therefore understand it better. To each his own, but it is no way a given."

Its becoming apparent, we missed each other here too, lol. What I meant by “Your character is an extension of yourself, and should reflect who you are.” is this.... You play the character usually for reasons your not like so in life or only parts are more true in real life. The character IS an extension on you because you are playing it the way you desire/want to/forced too. So you seek the best performance, outlet, or just plain escape you wish to seek. Being you wish to reflect who you are in character and out of character.

"The same goes for 3.5 as AD&D. It is not so dependent on the system, though the system my effect the realism of the roleplaying."

Yes the system does reflect the method of roleplaying, in 3.5 it is even more apparent. The system knocks itself down, battle in real life is chaos in the raw since of the war. Though those have tried to bring order, it is still chaos, and the 3.5 system doesn't (in my opinion) reflect that.

"I feel your pain. Would you be morally opposed if I were to procure for you every book ever made within 3.5 free of cost? PM me."

That nice thanks man, but honestly the explainations I gave above was really only the tip of the iceberg as to why I didn't like 3.5. I have countless reasons as to why, I just stuck with the main ones and I believe in this post I have explained it a bit further.

Maybe I am just different and like to see things in depth for they are or could be when it cause to gaming. I believe a paper and pencil game should take months/years to play. Usually when I start a new game, and people want to create there characters, I meet with everyone well before the actually game time to go over details for their character, what will the character like not like how was his/her childhood.. I try my best for people to get "into" their character. Just because a character has low stats or whatever the issue made be, there is ALWAYS compromise. Just like there is always explaination as to why. When characters meet, I make them do the work. I let the characters introduce themselves. Also me being a DM I LOVE the "prep time" to create a story/campaign, the more time i have the more things I change, the more side things I create to do, the more of everything. I read the post about streamlining and such under another board. I was shocked to see wizards of the sword coast becoming so business like. My thought of gaming is to have fun. But then again, I'm different

Sean

Karloff wrote on Dec 16^th, 2007 at 9:56pm:


Nothing stops you from saying that in your world the wizard class takes twice the XP for each level.  But the design of D20 is that level 2 is the amount of gain you get for 1000 xp.  Its just a different way to measure it.   Most RPGs make it so that intelligence based characters of a level are much more powerful than other characters.  Why, because geeks who think brains are more important than braun play the games.

Let's consider it a different way.  Lets take AD&D with its experience point progress it has now.  Everything is the same.  You THAC0 goes up based on your XP.  But, lets call level 1 0-1000 xp, level 2 1000-3000 xp, level 3 3000-6000 xp.   There is no diffence but all characters would need the same xp for each level, its just the amount of gain from each level in each class that's different.  That's the basic idea of D20.   They wanted to make the game more balanced and they tested it to level 10.  They simplified one thing, levels, by make the xp chart a constant.


Karloff wrote on Dec 16^th, 2007 at 9:56pm:


Not all all.  Its a matter of preference.  Some people play characters that are like them and some people like to play characters who are very unlike them.  I never play female characters.  I have no interest in doing that but some people want to.  I don't play clerics.  That kind of devotion is a mind set I neither understand or have any interest in playing out.   But some people want to play something they aren't and never would want to be.   Its not a 50/50 split but its not 100/0 either.

Karloff wrote on Dec 16^th, 2007 at 9:56pm:


Some battle is thought out and controlled.  Depends on the warrior.   The system is a cruch to help the players and DM work together with the same expectations.  No system does everything well and most do something well because they are designed for it.


Karloff wrote on Dec 16^th, 2007 at 9:56pm:


And I, personally, find D&D to be the worst system for this.   If someone is a thief and you figure out they are about 10th level then you not only KNOW that they can climb, pick pocket, and sneak, but you KNOW how good they can climb and how good they can pick pocket.   You know that if someone can climb wall X, then he can probably sneak at least as well as Y.   Its the flaw of D&D and AD&D.   But in every other system I can think of, that isn't true.  A character can be a thief and not know how to climb walls or pick pockets.  He can be a stealthy character without being good at traps and that is why AD&D is worse than D20, GURPS or HERO for role playing.   AD&D is a caste system.

Welp lucy looks like I got some 'splain to do. Question is where to start excatly.....


"Why?   Who says that its more work to be a second level X than a second level Y?   What does it mean to be a second level anything?   At second level you are improved in your class.   What is the difference in a second level of cleric and first level?"

Why... well why not? My main debate was how could a level 1 wizard at 1000 exp become a level 1 thief? How would he have learned the sneak attack ability, or even how to pick a pocket? The knowledge just "pops" into his head? Second level and as well any level marks improve upon your character. More hp's perhaps a better understanding in a spell(s), or perhaps a better way to attack an orc, or an ice troll. Leveling up breaks the threshold upon the character in question.

"AD&D made different classes go up different amounts for XP and as a result, different characters would advance at different times."

That was the best thing about it, of course everyone advanced different, that was completely the idea. In 3.5 is shows everyone learns everything at the same time and same pace. Thats highly unrealistic. For example, if 2 of the same characters of the same level and same class wish to be taught how to use a composite long bow... that system is both would learn it the excatly same time. Everyone does not learn at the same pace, some are much quickier then others and some alot slower then others.

"The problem you see is an artifact of thinking the AD&D way.   You need to try more game systems."

As i stated previously, my version is heavily modified, I do not follow the core rules. I have made several changes to make it more fun and balanced for all and also for all levels.

"My main issue with AD&D and second edition is this.   You say its easy for a guy to get to be a second level rouge, or rather, much easier than being a second level mage.  So how come a second level mage can easily become a rouge, if its so easy to be one?  Why do I have to ignore my mage skills to learn a little of that easy pick pocketing... if rouge is so easy?"

I was referring to how easy it is in 3.5 not AD&D. Though yes in my games it is possible for someone to select another class, even a third and/or a fourth if they wanted. Though thats what makes the game interesting. I never said you couldn't add a class, I was saying on how "EASY" it was to select another class in 3.5 without the slightly hint of training.

"Why?  Why can't I be a religious thief who gets a little bit of favor from a god?   Why can't I be a paladin of a magic god and get some casting ability?  Why can't I be a mage who specilizes in hand-to-hand at the cost of some magic ability?   Why is everyone one you meet one of a handful of templates?    "Look, that guy carries a holy symbol so I know he can't climb walls."

Ok this is where you make it interesting for me. Every character in the game world pays at least "lip-service" to at least if not all divine patrons. Merchants would pray to the god of trade, for an upcoming trade negotiation. A warrior would pray to the god of battle right before an upcoming battle. A common citizen would pray to the goddess of the sea to protect safe passage on an upcoming voyage. In a world with a number of gods, usually common people pay homage to good and bad things. I suppose I can use "kits" as an example, but yes it was possible to gain other skills outside of your class. Making an assumption of a character is a bad thing. Lets say your a cleric/mage, though you show your holy symbol, but you have slippers of spider climbing well hidden in your boots, or even the spell of spider climbing, sooo they could climb a wall, a guard tower and so forth. In my games you never know what a character is unless you ask them, pc and npc alike. Making assumptions could be a bad thing for your party, "oh look he is a fighter, lets rush him", and moments later a fireball erupts all around you.

"n D20 you can do that but a 3/3 fighter mage wont be as a good a fighter or mage and he probably wont be as deadly in combat as either a 6th level fighter or mage because he is too broadly focused."

Again thats the 3.5 way, you are a level 6 character, a 3/3 fighter mage. In AD&D you are a level 3 character but you are a 3/3 fighter mage. You are not considered a level 6 character. Your level in AD&D is your highest level, so for example if your are a Psionicist / Priest / Evoker
levels are 4 / 3 / 3, you are considered level 4, reguardless how much power you may have gained. Your saving throws and Thac0 would be the best of which ever class has the best, BUT each has a different experience table, and all experience you gain, you must split 3 ways because of 3 classes.

"In our normal game I am a Githyanki psionic who has become very good at forest skills.   You couldn't think of doing that in AD&D because (assuming GIth was allowed) because as a psionic you'd never get track or other forest skills.    The path this character took is not something I planned.  It happened because of the pressures of the world on the character and how he reacted and it was a lot more natural than what would have happened using the strict class system of D&D."

Again you make the assumption my AD&D follows core rules and it does not. Your githyanki is impressive, though I am curious oh how he has overcome the natural hatred for all race, because githyanki have a strong belief all other races are mind flayer (illithid) agents, which are  there most hated enemy due to the 2000 centuries of enslavement. LOL that brings me to another point, allow me to give you a few examples. There was quite a few strange classes played like, A Beholder Bard/Thief, that was a VERY fun campaign. Also had someone play a Storm Giant Wizard/Cleric. I have even ran campaigns and some players played an intelligent weapon, again another very FUN campaign. In my games the only limitation is your imagination, yes people have played strange and non-normal races, I have never had a problem with this, I rather enjoy it. Those kinds of campaigns have made very fun roleplaying, not to mention they had alot to over come in a human based world and human hatred.

"I'd argue the opposite.  D&D invented Hack and Slash and the cookie cutter character.  Its D&D that kills role playing.  Once a fighter, always a fighter."

Again core based, yes I wont argue the fact core rules blew big ones. Anyone to sticked to core rules, was rules lawyers. I use the AD&D system as a strong base, but I use the information for within. Somethings are completely made up and have made it very fun for both the player and myself.

"Nothing stops you from saying that in your world the wizard class takes twice the XP for each level.  But the design of D20 is that level 2 is the amount of gain you get for 1000 xp.  Its just a different way to measure it.   Most RPGs make it so that intelligence based characters of a level are much more powerful than other characters.  Why, because geeks who think brains are more important than braun play the games."

Ok this subject is a very touchy one, mainly because it crosses which class is the best. The all in all theme of D&D all versions, is for group play. No one class is better then another it all comes down how it is played. However I am a firm believer that not all class should level at the same time, its just me, sorry.

"Let's consider it a different way.  Lets take AD&D with its experience point progress it has now.  Everything is the same.  You THAC0 goes up based on your XP.  But, lets call level 1 0-1000 xp, level 2 1000-3000 xp, level 3 3000-6000 xp.   There is no diffence but all characters would need the same xp for each level, its just the amount of gain from each level in each class that's different.  That's the basic idea of D20.   They wanted to make the game more balanced and they tested it to level 10.  They simplified one thing, levels, by make the xp chart a constant."

Excatly, what I am saying, not all classes should level at the same time. Yes there advancement is different but they are all still learning at the same time. Thats not realistic, take a group of high school students all in the same class learn a text book lesson, are all of them going to learn it at the same time? No they will not, some will catch on right away, other will take longer, and the rest may or may not ever understand it.

"Not all all.  Its a matter of preference.  Some people play characters that are like them and some people like to play characters who are very unlike them.  I never play female characters.  I have no interest in doing that but some people want to.  I don't play clerics.  That kind of devotion is a mind set I neither understand or have any interest in playing out.   But some people want to play something they aren't and never would want to be.   Its not a 50/50 split but its not 100/0 either."

Excatly, its a matter of preference, but either way you look at the character is still an extension of you playing it. Since you are playing that character it has a part of you in the character, though it may be subtle.

"Some battle is thought out and controlled.  Depends on the warrior.   The system is a cruch to help the players and DM work together with the same expectations.  No system does everything well and most do something well because they are designed for it."

3.5 tries to hard to bring order to raw chaos. The system works however you make it work. Any system can be made to work best for a group.'

"And I, personally, find D&D to be the worst system for this.   If someone is a thief and you figure out they are about 10th level then you not only KNOW that they can climb, pick pocket, and sneak, but you KNOW how good they can climb and how good they can pick pocket.   You know that if someone can climb wall X, then he can probably sneak at least as well as Y.   Its the flaw of D&D and AD&D.   But in every other system I can think of, that isn't true.  A character can be a thief and not know how to climb walls or pick pockets.  He can be a stealthy character without being good at traps and that is why AD&D is worse than D20, GURPS or HERO for role playing.   AD&D is a caste system."

Completely untrue, Just because a thief is lvl 10, you have no idea what there thieveing abilities that character has, unless they followed the the chart to fill it in. Otherwise the character had points to spend in thief skills each new level up. The thief character in AD&D had points to spend even in core rules, you could be an expert trap disarmer and spend no point in climb walls.

Hopefully that is the explaination you was looking for

Sean

Ok, I honestly didn't want this to become an all out brawl on which system is better. Core rules AD&D is crap, I will be the first to admit that. They had gross oversights, not to mention the unrealistic way to gain skills. I suppose I'm trying to defend my version of AD&D, but ya'll couldn't possibly know about it.

I think we can agree to disagree at this point, but some explaination is of course needed. We should agree enough to keep open-minded and yet disagree enough to learn about it.

So in light of that I purpose a compromise, to compromise for compromises sake. I purpose this, I am willing to try a game with 3.5, if of course your willing to show me. Now in the same light, I would be willing to show you MY version of AD&D.

So, who knows, I may like the "streamline" of 3.5 if I saw it in action. But if it's a lot like "Neverwinter Nights" I might be annoyed.

What ya say?

Sean