mere shadow of its former glory

[Jonathan Winters]

I'm sorry Drinnik.
What's Skills and Powers?

Patrick

[Drinnik Shoehorn]

I'm sorry Drinnik.
What's Skills and Powers?

Patrick

Think of it as 2.5 Ed.

You can see how 3rd Ed evolved from it.

[Jonathan Winters]

Thank you!

Patrick

[Bryan1108]

I think that I know where you are coming from. That makes me confident in saying that this problem with 3E is mostly in your head.
It isn't that 2E is better than 3E. It is just that you are comfortable with 2E. You know the rules and are comfortable with them and now you are put out by having to learn new rules.
I was the same way for quite awhile.
That being said, in answer to your original question, I like 3E better.
Once you are used to it (and it is similar enough to 2E that it doesn't take long to get used to) the game just runs smoother. You are not looking up charts for every ability and action.
Also, I like to add off the wall stuff into my campaign. The lastest and easiest example would be that I wanted to use a Mad Scientist style villain. So I looked in Deadlands D20 and found a balanced and detailed set of rules to make him with the Mad Scientist class.
In the old 2E system, every new thing required house rules and/adendums to make it work with the rest of the system.
With 3E, the rules are set up to include new information so you can concentrate on the story.
Just my $0.02

[Autolykos]

Conversion isn't too difficult. When I dig out my 2E Ravenloft stuff and read through it, I find myself already building the NPCs in my head before I actually start to write it down. And like Bryan1108 stated, some things just fit better and make more sense with the 3.X rules.

Making the leap from Skills & Powers to 3.X is not that big of step. TSR was pushing us in the direction of 3.X with the S&P rules, I think. If I remember correctly, that is where Attacks of Opportunity first reared its ugly head.

[Jonathan Winters]

I will try to answer some of your “questions”.
I assume the Castle Ravenloft product mentioned as coming in the future on Amazon will be in a 4.5 or some other ridiculous version of the rules to make it equally purile as the rest that have been printed since the Dark Conjunction and loss of TSR, a noble ruling faction in my eyes (well, my darkened eye sockets) unlike the current usurpers.[/color][/color][/color]

I assume you mean “puerile” as in childish? If anything, the 3E game isn’t childish, it is very well thought out. And it’s “Grand” Conjunction. And you mean all the stupid stuff printed after that? Something like 40 Guides, Adventures and Accessories… Just for 2E.

If not then how can you possibly understand the Demiplane of Dread with only a few wizards of the coast volumes to darken yoActually, they were done by White Wolf… Wizards owns the license.ur shelves?

Actually, they were done by White Wolf… Wizards owns the license.


I assume that you do indeed play the newer rules then? which do you prefer if you did play the old rules? If you prefer the newer rules, do you find it exasperating that most of the Ravenloft material is 2nd edition? How do you remedy this conundrum?

I play with 3E rules and have been for a couple of years or something like that. It was strange at first after having played the game for 15 years, but I really enjoy the 3E better after all. Things just seem to make more sense. And like someone else said: you can borrow from any other D20 setting / product. How easy is that? They ALL use the same system! That is very player (and consumer) friendly! I can integrate things from Malhavoc Press if I want to! And you can customize your characters to no end.

I only have been collecting the newer books to complete my ravenloft collection and for the background information on the dread realms contained therein.

Which is how I started, I was playing 2E and using the stuff for my game, That is how well written it was, IMHO.

and to my understanding much of the original Ravenloft material including the VRG's would be irrelevant in the newer rules. What about vampiric age progression or ghostly power levels etc. in the New rules? did they through away everything but the name of the game? it seems so to me

Hum… You mean pages 196 to 243 of the Campaign Setting / Player’s Handbook? Obviously they couldn’t print every line as a conversion to 3E, but it’s pretty much all there for you to use.

I have no use for the new rules and much lament their use in D&D products in general. To me its as if the new owners wanted to retain the fans by buying the rights to the names etc. but really just wanted to install their own game mechanic rather than improve on anything in the old rules.

I think people said that when Advanced D&D came out… They streamlined the system, made it less cumbersome. Can you really say that is a bad thing? They used everything that was there first and then expanded on it. It’s different, but not that different. And, in my opinion, it’s probably, for the most part, better.

Patrick


(Sorry about the edit, i am having problems with this color thing...)

[ScS of the Fraternity]

I'll call the Code Monkey to help you, Jonathon.

In any case, I think that Ravenloft could have entered a renaisance with the 3rd edition rules.
2nd edition always got my goat in that its rules were very strict. The rules were based on medieval type themes, with little if any flexability to create characters who were anything but sterotypes.
Magical items were critical to play - since many characters didn't have any real advancement in their classes. There was a strict heirarchy of classes as well: Fighters at the bottom, paladins at the top.
I think I got into D&D around the time that was boiling over. I remember the explosion of things that tried to bend the rules (like the Necropolis supplements) or add to them (like the skills and tactics books).
All things considered, the skills and tactics books came close to remedying the situation, though perhaps too many options were offered (eg: each attribute was split in two).

3rd edition opened up all sorts of possibilties for a Ravenloft world - where the may different cultures and settings of the demiplane could be represented in the rules.

Sadly, I would argue that Ravenloft was mostly passed over in 3rd edition. It might be connected to the fact that years passed before anyone was willing to touch the setting (apart from the Kargatane).

Sigh... If only we could have had a Domains of Dread for 3rd edition. Now that was a book.[/i]

[Brandi]

Don't look at me, bo-- personally I think the whole thing would do better to be Powered By GURPS...

[TwiceBorn]

so far noone has attempted to answer my basic thrust with this thread: which do you like better and why? I am looking for a comparison between the two (as obviously I lack 3e experience) Is it hard to covert all of the data from 2nd? how would you do NPCs that aren't included in the newer books but have backgrounds and stats in the old? do Dms really try to convert all of the Ravenloft 2e or do they just look wistfully back and reminisce about the good old days?

Hi Eldritch,

I've been playing D&D for about 20 years now, making the progression from OD&D, to AD&D, to AD&D 2nd ed, to AD&D Skills and Powers/Combat and Tactics (which I REALLY liked), to D&D 3.5. I'll admit, it took me an extremely long time to make the last leap (I have a huge library of first and second edition Greyhawk and Ravenloft products and like you, was comfortable with the old system and wasn't excited about learning a new set of rules and spending loads of cash on new books), and I have no intention of making further leaps after this. All in all, my friends and I think D&D 3.5 is the best version by far, and the transition from AD&D 2 to D&D 3.X has offered the most substantial changes ever made in the game. As others have pointed out, once you take the time to read the 3.5 Player's Handbook and DM's Guide, you realize that the game is now more flexible and coherent than ever before. And the use of other d20 resources has enabled me to truly customize the system to the point where it really feels like my own.

I sympathize with your concern over templates, new races, and multi-classing. As a matter of fact, hearing about things like half-dragon/half-elf fighter 7/paladin9/wizard 19/archmage 3/rogue 10 characters was one of the reasons I initially thought I would hate version 3.5... it was perhaps a tad too flexible and power gamer oriented? But the truth is, you only allow that stuff into your game if you want to. My gaming group is very low magic and low power, and while we love the increased flexibility of 3.5 ("I can make a dwarven wizard or a multi-classed human fighter/rogue? Hurray!"), none of the players are focused on making ultra exotic and powerful characters... they're more interested in making plausible characters (to the extent that's possible in a heroic fantasy game where magic is a factor). Likewise, I as a DM am more interested in making interesting and plausible villains (read: not throwing the flavour of the month or the most bizarre "combination monster" at them for shock value). Still, being able to throw curve balls at your players is much easier and more satisfying under v.3.5. For those that like power gaming, version 3.5 delivers. For those that don't, version 3.5 provides just as well... it's all a matter of your approach to DMing and the mutual expectations you develop with your players.

Also, the v 3.5 skills system is far superior the 2nd ed proficiency system. There is more room (and need) for skill progression as a character gains level, and you aren't necessarily an immediate expert because you have high attributes.

As far as 2nd ed. adventure conversion is concerned, I'm currently working on a conversion for Night of the Walking Dead to "v 3.7" (3.5 plus assorted rules modifications from various d20 sources). I'm taking the adventure outline, expanding on it, and making it my own... I'm not concerned about making the creatures and NPC class/levels (or even magic items, for that matter) identical to what they were in 2nd ed... it's the spirit of the adventure that counts! If you don't try to make a 100% equivalency between 2nd ed and v. 3.X stats, you take much of the headache out of the conversion process! Plus, the 3.5 DM's Guide has decent guidelines for creating encounters with different challenge levels (the system certainly isn't perfect, but it's more than what we had under 2nd ed.). One of the great things about 3.5 is the relative ease with which a DM can cusomize an adventure to challenge characters of different levels.

Bottom line is... buy the Core D&D Player's Handbook and DM's Guide, read the rules, then decide whether they truly are inferior to what you're used to in 2nd ed. Yes, it's an investment and it takes a little bit uf getting used to, but I suspect that you will find it a worthwhile investment.

Good luck!

[Faust]

Sorry but second edition was stupid.

First of all, all monsters have the same stats? Come on! Not every vampires are the same, not every ghost are the same and not every wolves are the same. With templates, monster progression and the opportunity to add character classes to the monsters, the dm can make unique stuff instead of always the same stuff. It allow for more creativity.

Also the race/class limit sucked! I mean an elf raised by humans cant take the same classes as them?

Thirdly, the multiclassing system was bad. Ho i dual class my character from mage to fighter but for a while he forget how to use his spells.

Fourthly the classes were badly designed. I mean a paladin needed 17 of charisma: so if you wanted to play a paladin you needed to be extremly lucky. Or the druid who had to have the whole game centered on himself to advance beyond lvl 14...

[Jonathan Winters]

To Twiceborn,

Wow, that was very well thought out. So much better than what I could have written in my sleep-deprived state.
Thank you.

To Faust,
I think you are being a bit harsh. I think you have to put things in perspective. At the time, it was very good. Different than what we have now, but it was still fun.

I'm very curious to hear from Eldritch at this point... I hope you will at least give the books a chance. Find a used Player's Handbook and take a chance, buy it and see for yourself. I think you're forgetting the difference between ''not liking something'' (which is your right) and saying ''this is bad and has no value'' (which is pretty narrow-minded, IMHO).

Patrick
Have a good day!

[Autolykos]

Heck, you don't even have to buy it (although it helps)! You can take the rules for a test drive before you buy the books because the basic rules are available online for free!

www.d20srd.org

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

Hi Eldritch,

I've been playing Original D&D, AD&D 1st & 2nd edition, and Skill & Powers for 20 years. Third Edition is better. There, I've said it. It took a long time for me to admit that, but it's true. And it's also true that it's not all that different once you get used to it. And 3.5 is pretty much only minor tweaks to 3.0. By the way, you don't have to buy the books to try it out. One of the best parts of 3.x is that it's "open gaming." The System Reference Document is all the rules without the fluff, and available free online in several places. There's a nicely formatted version that I like to use at http://srd.pbemnexus.com Take a look at it, and see. I don't expect you to be won over immediately, but once you know a bit about the rules, think about these problems with 2e that are blissfully gone.

1) Level limits for demihumans, a lame attempt to make people play humans occaisionally that never worked because people just begged their DM's to lift the limits. (3e: no limits, races are balanced. humans actually have real benefits.)
2) no reason to play humans, since all the other demihumans had some benefit. (3e: humans are more skillful and flexible)
3) race/class limitations. Is it that hard to imagine a dwarven paladin? Why can't I play one if I come up with a good character concept? (3e: some races are better than others at certain classes, but any combo is allowed.)
4) Nonweapon proficiencies are one of the best additions in 2e, but they have no way to represent different levels of skill. Every dextrous person either has no idea how to tumble, or is absolutely great at tumbling. There's no in between, there's no way for a clumsy person to work hard and become a great tumbler. (3e: the skill system is great. You choose what to be good at, and how good to be. Natural ability helps, but training is taken into account.)
5) multiclassing sucks. If I cast a spell, I forget all the fighter training I've been working on? stupid. Humans, who live the shortest have to learn one thing at a time, but demihumans who live forever have to choose one combination (from an approved list of combinations) and stick with it? stupid. (3e: the multiclassing system is brilliant, and can be used to model any character concept you can come up with, in a relatively balanced way. (yes, you can get carried away, but it's up to the DM to reign that in.)
6) No ability increases except by magic. I can pump iron as long as I want, but I never get stronger? (3e: every 4 levels you get to raise a stat by a point)
7) No one cares about charisma. or wisdom unless they're a priest, or int unless they're a wizard. (3e: every stat matters, for nearly every character.)
8 ) Stats don't matter unless they are really high or really low. A Dex7 and Dex14 are equally good at aiming a bow? (3e: every 2 points of a stat has a real affect on many aspects of the game, and the system is unified so there's no wacky tables to look up on all the time.)
9) Monsters and PC's follow different rules. Is there really any difference between a gnome who wants to be a wizard and a goblin who wants to be a wizard? A vampire can slay 1000 foolish adventurers and never gain experience from it? (3e: nearly any sentient crature can gain class levels)
10) What happens when a goblin is bit by a wererat? Or when a red widow dies with unfinished business? I have to come up with a whole new monster? (3e: templates are simple, flexible, and effective, especially for things that can happen to a creature to change it's nature: ghost, vampire, lycanthropes, all templates and rightfully so)

These are just the first 10 off the top of my head. I could go on. And I loved 2e, and avoided 3e for at least a year before even looking at it.

Now, I run a 3e Ravenloft campaign, and I have no trouble at all converting stuff. I've run The Evil Eye, Feast of Goblyns, and entries from Children of the Night: Ghosts, Chilling Tales, and Children of the Night: The Created, all in 3e. As well as using stuff from Islands of Terror, Bleak House, Forged of Darkness, the Nightmare lands, Darklords, Carnival, the VRG's, Neither Man nor Beast, I10, Domains of Dread, etc.
(shameless plug: take a look if you want at http://themistway.com)
So my 2e books are by no means worthless. Nearly every 2e monster has already been converted. NPC's are a breeze to whip up, especially with one of the many character creation spreadsheets available on the web.

In the end, though... the rules don't matter. They're just a way to simulate life. They need to resolve conflicts and challenges and then get out of my way. 3e, for all it's flaws, does that fine. 2e, for all it's flaws, did that fine as well. You don't have to switch if you don't want to, but to think that anyone who does is somehow losing the faith is silly. have fun, and remember it's only a game...

[midnightcat]

Perhaps you are correct and one did lead to the other but I think it has gone far far away from what used to be simple to understand rules; and to my understanding much of the original Ravenloft material including the VRG's would be irrelevant in the newer rules. What about vampiric age progression or ghostly power levels etc. in the New rules? did they through away everything but the name of the game? it seems so to me.

It seems you haven't even read aby of the Books. If youhave either the Ravenloft Player's book or the Ravenloft Campaighn book by White wolf, they have the Van Richten abalties. It is alot like the Red Box set for Ravenloft. In 3rd it is very easy to make a Vampire not a vampire. I love the new Van richten guides. I even manged to make Van Richten's Guide to the walking Dead, work in 2nd.

I assume that you do indeed play the newer rules then? which do you prefer if you did play the old rules? If you prefer the newer rules, do you find it exasperating that most of the Ravenloft material is 2nd edition? How do you remedy this conundrum?

Basically how do you play a campain setting in ravenloft with the new rules when at least 85% of the ravenloft material was printed using the 2nd edition format? Do you just use the new books and use the rest for background? it seems to me that much of the flavor has been lost.

I wanted to know what old gamers thought about the switch and if they had experience in both which did they prefer, or if you are a new ravenloft gamer what do you think about all of the older products in the 2nd edit.?[/quote]

I run Both a 2nd editon game and a 3rd editon game. I only run the 2nd editon game vecuase i have an older player who is stubborn and she think she wouldn't understand the new rules.
Anywya, alot of the 3rd editon stuff can be used for information. Thier is alot there that not covered in 2nd. Also it is easy to convert 2nd thing to 3rd. Alot of important ideas have been converted to 3rd edition if you have the White Wolf books. I only have 3 Wizard of the coast booksm and all the rest are Ravenloft 3rd editon or a few independent company books., and I run great 3rd editon game. I actually find it easier to get the mood correct in 3rd editon then in 2nd. Also besides monster, and magicla items, the modules are not that hard to convert. alot of the same text cna be used.

[Steve Miller]

*shrug*

I'd put "Dark Tales" and "Legacies of the Blood" on par with anything I worked on for RL 2nd-ed.