I hate to admit this, but in the past couple of days I have been submersed in a game that uses the dreaded d20 system and I have to say I like it. I am a big enough man to admit when I might have been wrong about a system. Let's not get carried away and say that I like it BETTER than 2nd edition for AD&D, but for other systems I can see it working quite well. I am sure it would work just fine for AD&D but for me to switch would just be stupid on my part. I have fixed, adjusted and manipulated 2nd edition to work for me in my own way. To switch to another would flush all that hard work down the toilet.
I can say this however, I will not rip apart someone for using 3.5 anymore. I will however still defend what I said in my previous posts as to the evil nature of WOTC. I still agree with myself on the difference between ROLE playing and ROLL playing and that doesn't matter what system you use.
3.5 is still something that is supposed to be simpler than 2nd edition, but let me tell you it's not in many ways. You can get pretty deep into combat with 3.5. With that being said it can also be simplified just like 2nd edition and in many ways it works just as well if not better.
I might be a big man when it comes to admitting I am wrong, but that still doesn't mean I feel good about it. One good thing to come out of this is I am no longer afraid of learning the new system and I have on good authority that I will be getting some new 3.5 books for my birthday. Does this mean I will be switching my current campaign over to 3.5. HELL NO!!! This does mean that if a certain game or genre fits better with 3.5, or if I am running something for my friends who have switched to the darkside many years ago, I might use it. I MIGHT use it. I am open to using it now.
One thing that really made me investigate the system more was the rule about Vitality Points and Wound Points, which at first I thought was stupid, but after reviewing it's very solid. We have been doing the same thing for years, but we didn't have two different stats for what we called HIT POINTS. For example in 2nd edition I have a current character who is a 23rd level fighter and he has 167 hit points. Now even we knew that didn't mean he could take at least 16 full strength bastard sword hits, it was a number resembling his level and experience as to how badly he is injured. Scraps and bruises were much of the number. Even near misses in certain situations. We always played that if you were backstabbed and didn't have the ability to block a blow in any way, your HIT POINTS were almost useless. It was a call on the spot between the DM and the PC at that point.
In the 3.5 edition it's pretty clear which is which. For people with little experience in roleplaying, like newbies or someone switching from Rifts or AD&D it's a good way to explain why you get so many hit points in 2nd edition. I don't consider this a improvement on 2nd edition, more like a better explanation of how HIT POINTS worked. So now you get Wound points equal to your Constitution and however many Vitality Points you get for being a certain level fighter. My 23rd level fighter would have stats like this: Wound Points of 16 (Con) and 151 Vitality Points. Seems logical to me. WOTC had to tell others this, but we have been playing the same way for years and years, but here it's spelled out for the players, which is good.
In closing, 3.5 is not as evil on it's own as I claimed it once was. However WOTC is still an evil fucking company and I stand by what I said about switching systems whenever they tell you to. If you play 1st edition and it's working for you, save your money and stay where you are, same goes for people playing 3.5, just stick with what works and forget about the juggernaut called WOTC telling you need to buy a whole new set of books. FUCK THEM!!! Play what you like, and right now I like 2nd edition for AD&D, but I can see how people can like either 3.0 or 3.5. More power to you with whatever system you use.
Peace out
Michael
No comments:
Post a Comment