Second or Third Ed.

[Dupin]

Hi there FoS people; as you may have seen I'm very interested in knowing how to DMing well in RL, and I have found myself kind of confused when choosing which one to use.

Well, you now shall defend your, well your campaing setting

[Guardian of Twilight]

Welcome to the FoS boards, friend Dupin. I personally feel that 3e and 3.5 give players as well (as the DM) more options for character (and monster) creation.

With 2nd Edition you seem more restricted. I suppose that is why game designers craft a new system, eh? To allow more of the grand design of the campaign and characters to be told in a better scope. I hope that my thoughts on the matter assist you, and all of the best on your campaign.

[Dupin]

Thank you for your opinion, thing which I haven't taken in acount was that.
From that point of view I'd prefr third ed., I have quite an imaginatino, especially making twisted things and characters that have endless backgrounds, so as with stories, the problem is that I make them so tale-like that it might be quite lineal, thing which I'm trying to reverse this times before I start with Ravenloft.

I hopefully expect that this thread starts atracting people so as to havo more points of view, especially from the passionate-crazy-zealotlike-purist, come on a little emotion here peple of the FoS, and I've even thought of making a little review of each edition, but I'd need you opinions (the good thing of knowing nothing, contrarily of what you might think, is that I have no preference for one of them, having a neutral opinion which keeps it from any personal opinion)

By the way, this is not some sort of Grim Harvest to be more powerful, so don't be shy

[Vannax]

From my point of view it is hard task to brand either of the systems 2E or 3E (3,5) as a better one than the other. Many times, I were discusing the pros and cons of them both and never get the univocal answer what is better…. I play 2nd Edition for years and I´m more or less content with it, or otherwise told - I have no need to switch to 3E.

In my opinions: 3E (including 3,5E) is designed more or less as a computer game Diablo. What 3E fans see as a better chance to individualize and develop their characters, I see it as a fast food for indolent players. Creating characters in 3E brings more variability - on the other hand it makes the player characters more absurd. This is just one (simplified) example of pros and cons among many others.

[Ail]

I much prefer 3E. Game mechanics are much simpler and the whole system of classes (multi-classing) skills and feats is so flexible that it really lets you do what you want.
There is less artificiality and is easier to play. The only part I'd consider more difficult is the tactic combat, with AoO and all that.

Alex

[HuManBing]

I prefer 3rd edition... but just barely.

It removes a lot of the arbitrary numerical inconsistencies with 2nd edition (such as how some nonweapon proficiencies happen to have random bonuses and penalties to the checks, or how AC gets better as the number gets lower, or how the classes have different experience caps for level advancement, or how humans can't multiclass). However, it also introduces some of its own, and a few of the classes are still rather unbalanced (the monk still gets the short end of the stick as far as powers are concerned... looks like my wuxia martial arts campaign won't be starting anytime soon!).

As far as the materials specifically for Ravenloft go, I prefer the 2nd ed. setting, but with the 3rd ed. detail. I also pick and mix from various sourcebooks to find the optimum timeline.

I like how the domains are laid out in the Red Box, especially how the Nightmare Lands, Bluetspur, and G'Henna/Markovia are removed from the Core. That makes more continuity sense.

However, I usually set my campaigns to run before the Grand Conjunction. The difference, politically, between the realms is not that huge - at least compared to later differences brought by the Requiem - but I like the two adventures From the Shadows and Roots of Evil a lot and they usually form the capstone of any Ravenloft campaign I run.

That having been said, I refer often to the Gazetteers, because they offer so much detail on the realms. This is usually not a big problem for Darkon, which is my favorite realm and which I have generated enough homebrew information (same goes for Falkovnia), but for other realms nearby where my PCs may venture, I reach for the Gaz to fill in the gaps.

I also disliked the transformation of Il Aluk to Necropolis, and in my campaigns the capital city is still bustling and alive. None of my campaign arcs have ever reached the Requiem, although some have come close.

[Brandi]

To be honest, I think I'd rather run a Ravenloft campaign under GURPS so I don't have to try and slot characters into the class designations; also, D&D always seemed to favor a higher level of available magic and gear (3.x even makes assumptions about equipment available to parties when choosing CR) than I personally think fits the setting.

That said, the 3.x books provide a wealth of good material to work with in the Gazetteers.

[WolfKook]

Strictly speaking, I totally prefer the d20 system. It just can be adapted in whichever way you want!

I, for one, have made a lot of tinkering to the system, to adapt it to the way I want to play Ravenloft (Or any other setting, as it goes):

• Adjusted the core races to make them less "fantastic" and more "gothic", using RL instead of fantasy dwarves, half-arak instead of elves and standard humans stuck in an endless childhood instead of halflings (I guess they will be published in the new QtR), along with standard calibans and half-vistani.

• Tailored the core classes, using different sources (Defenders from Midnight instead of Monks, Arcanists from HoH instead of Clerics, Magisters from Arcana Unearthed and Witches from the Wilderlands instead of Wizards and Sorcerers, Unfettered and Warmains from AU instead of Fighters, Psychics instead of Psions, and so on... With a few extra adjustments each. Indeed, Bards and Druids, are PrCs IMC, using the rules from Unearthed Arcana and Midnight)

• Replaced the standard Alignment with the Taint rules in HoH

• Started using the slower Level progression found in Wilderlands

and so on...

And, yeap... I may have done something similar with AD&D 2e, but it would have needed too much extra work.

[Spiteful Crow]

looks like my wuxia martial arts campaign won't be starting anytime soon!).

Have you tried Tome of Battle?

[Ail]

As for replacing Monks in Ravenloft, I always felt, well, at least since I played 'Conquests of the Longbow waaaaay back (first times around 1992), that the Monk could also be European-flavoured. In said game, there were black-robed monks in 12th century England that were experts with the quarterstaff. It is not flying kicks, but that was the most aggressive weapon they used. I bet we'd be able to quickly find replacements for monk weapons that would still allow them their bonuses, and you may bet that every soldier in the European middle ages also knew his martial arts.
(Check http://www.aemma.org/ and http://www.thearma.org/HEMA.htm).
They are just not as fashionable as the eastern kind, but surely they would have to be effective.

For all the other abilities, I think, though I haven't tried it, they could be recast into something more medieval with the same mechanics. All this to make it fit more easily into Ravenloft. There is nothing quite so alluring to me as a cleric monk who is both pious, knowledgeable and proficient with some crude weapons....oh, and always dressed in black robes. He might not have the divine magic, but I think he can be more plausible and even realistic.

Alex

[WolfKook]

Hehehehehe... Yeap, I know. Also, i think there was a form of Martial Art (Savate, I think) which was developed up in Europe. I don't argue that monks may have an european flavor, but I have always thought that their martial arts trappings (All the kicking, tumbling and yelling) make it difficult to maintain a gothic atmosphere.

The defender, OTOH, is not a martial artist per se; just a normal person who needs to defend himself or someone else from the dangers out there, but who lives under heavy restrictions (Such as those that may exist in domains like Barovia and Borca) which prevents him from using weapons, except for those that can be used as tools. Instead of stealing the flavor, the defender, IMO, adds to it!

My whole point, however, was to say that 3e is a lot more customizable than 2e was. There are a lot of official and 3rd party products that function just like "plug-ins". You just take what you want, and it functions seamlessly with the rest of the rules!

[VAN]

I find the 3rd and 3.5 easier to learn than the 2nd which I was playing for many years and I have never learnt!

[steveflam]

I've played 2nd, 3.5 and C&C (Castles and Crusades) in RL. Everyone has their own preferences. I dont mind either one now that Ive played 3.5 I understand it better. I vote on none as it depends on each person

[HuManBing]

looks like my wuxia martial arts campaign won't be starting anytime soon!).

Have you tried Tome of Battle?

Elliott20, another user on these boards, is my collaborator and he has that book. He said it is a slight improvement for the monks, but they still need way too many feats to get up to par, or the newly-introduced monklike classes are so powerful that the original monk class is broken.

Then again, I have found that the True Necromancer class in Heroes of Horror is far superior to the usual Wizard-specialize-in-Necromancy class... and that doesn't give me any problems.

[Spiteful Crow]

Elliott20, another user on these boards, is my collaborator and he has that book. He said it is a slight improvement for the monks, but they still need way too many feats to get up to par, or the newly-introduced monklike classes are so powerful that the original monk class is broken.

The original monk class was broken to begin with.

And the book pretty much makes all the original melee classes obsolete.