Community

Yeah the retraining in D&D is simply archaic. I don't want them to just pay a trainer and suddenly be a totally different build though like you can in games like WoW or D3 (hell, D3 you don't even need to go to town to do it).

I'm usually pretty easy going about players swapping abilities around though.

Mar 12, 2013 -- 10:31AM, cheethorne wrote:

Mar 12, 2013 -- 8:56AM, kadim wrote:

There's a lot to be said for 2e's relatively lightning fast character creation.

So what parts of character creation in 3e really bogged him down, or was it just feats?

The feats were the big slow down/break point. Skills were another because I had to explain each one in the context of play, but it was the heavy mechanics approach 3e takes to feats that put him off. There were some 3e things that helped, like the illustration of all the races next to each other in the book. Character classes were clear and easily understood. Attributes were simpler in 3e than in 2e for him to grasp, but the language surrounding rolling checks more confusing ("roll int" actually means int mod, not int). Broader notions such as fighting style, weapon choice, casting vs martial, divine vs arcane and so on were easy for him. Base attack easier to understand than thac0 but actually was about the same for him to resolve in play. Fort/Ref/Will easier to grasp during creation but he actually found 2e saves easier to use in play.

My theory on this is 2e's approach to saves display plainly the targets and I made him aware of any modifiers to the roll he had, so the goal posts stayed the same 3e's save DCs move around and that created a certain delay even when I told him the DC. A more advanced player I might not tell them how I'm modifying the roll and they would understand that there's something going on that they're unaware of, but for him I thought it'd be better to keep it transparent.

Mar 12, 2013 -- 10:31AM, cheethorne wrote:

In both systems, did he try to build an Elf Necromancer by looking through the available books (provided by you) and try to figure it out based on what he was seeing or did you give him guidelines like "In 3e, you can do it, but you have to choose the right options" and "In 2e, you can't do it mechanically, but here's how we an reflavour things to get you the feel of what you want"? I ask because information for character creation can be streamlined in various ways and as you've said, named specialties can get him what we wants if and only if the named speciality matches what he is looking for. If, for example, he was looking to make a generic, but powerful wizard then he might still be out of luck when presented with 2+ specialties filled with arcane related feats that he has no ability to distinguish with his level of exposure.

Just so. With the 3e bit I directed him to specialist wizards and one of the things he really stumbled on was having to pick what schools he'd ban for his specialty. When he stalled there I directed him to the sorcerer or perhaps a generalist wizard that just had a lot of necromantic spells, but that didn't scratch his itch. 2e's schools are presented as a set thing so that decision point wasn't there. We hand waved away the race and reduced the wisdom requirement to 13 'cause he didn't have it and I don't think they're reasonable.

I think a large part of his response to 2e had to do with the fact that things weren't possible but were changed to suit him. 3e can totally do what he wanted and do it well without any changes, but the fact that he had to pick those options was a barrier for him. The fact that 2e's rules are inadequate to fit every concept actually made 2e look better because I was flexible and changing rules to make his character possible. That's not necessarily to do with the rules themselves, but I think the fact that most folks had to change the game to make it something they wanted to play fosters a "can do" kind of culture. I don't think that's necessarily the best way to do that, but it's effective.

Mar 12, 2013 -- 10:31AM, cheethorne wrote:

Trying to figure that out, even with higher choice selections like specialties or major class options, like a Necromancy wizard tradition, is still going to be slower than being straight out told that what he is trying to do won't work mechanically.

Absolutely, but I think if they're passionate about something then it's worth the time. He really wanted that character in 3e and I worked hard to point him in the direction he wanted. Hindsight tells me that I probably should have given him a pregen that met his concept and let him play, but that seems to be a bit of a shame if that's what you have to do for new folks.

Mar 12, 2013 -- 10:31AM, cheethorne wrote:

Actually, the big difference between the two editions would have to be feats, right? In both, you have to choose a race and a class. In both you have to choose either skills or non-weapon proficiencies. In 2e you can choose a kit, which in many ways could be a parrallel to choosing a specialty (ie. a high level concept of grouped abilities), and in 3e most classes have alternate class features that can take affect at level 1. But in 3e, you have to choose an individual feat (or a few depending on class / race) from a sea of options, some of which can only be taken at level 1.

The feats are the big thing. Skills in 3e are far more complex and variable as well. He flipped through the kits and decided to ignore them. He said he wanted to focus on the core before he got into the other books.

I tend to teach everyone in the same way (more or less). I gave him a copy of the PHB a week or so before we played and told him not to read it, but to flip through for ideas and just to get the feel for the game. The day before I dropped him an email and asked if he had any questions, and he had a few about necromancers. Very little about the mechanics was asked. Then we make a character, which takes a while the first time through.

Once all that's done I tend to dive right in, but I keep my encounters fairly simple and try to introduce mechanics slowly through gameplay.