dungeones and dragons

[willyhenriksen]

anyone playing it? its a faboulus game (its played on paper, you need a bit imagination) you play with a class and a race, the classes is: rogue, fighter, mage, sorcerer, wizard, ranger, and there are some underclasses who you can develop to. the races is: dwarf, halfelf, halforc, human, halfling, gnome and elf.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if you want to have a fun game you need a friend with all the equipment,(works if you got it) its pretty expensive to get all the stuff you need but its realy a good game. the game is played with dices who says if you hits an enemyor missing, we got a d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and d20, thats how many sides it got.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

when you start playing and have made yourself a character you usualy gets a mission of doiung something and the game is totaly free so you can go everywheren you want.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

Just out of interest, which edition are you talking about? Actually no, just asnwer this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you put on a suit of armour, does your armour class go up, or down?

[Greatsilverwyrm]

I've participated in a few campaigns but I could never really get into it...

[salamander]

i personally always preferred warhammer fantasy roleplay (the first version, never played the second)

 

 

 

but D&D is still good

[indy500fan]

i played never winter nights and their expansions, which apperantly use 3.0 rules. people say 3.5 rules are better though. i sit back and look confused :D

 

 

 

i like it in some games. neverwinter nights, and knights of the old republic 1 and 2 all used it pretty well. i didnt like baldurs gate 2 or planescape torment, which are supposedly supposed to follow the rules better, but i just tried those a few weeks ago so i missed the hey day of those sort of games. ive never played d&d on paper, no one to play with and id feel like a complete nerd rather than just a 80% nerd :lol:

[Pete_the_Viscous]

It's a shame that they're only (I assume) going to make games with the new rules. They sort of "watered them down" so they'd appeal to more people (not to say that it's no longer a good set of rules, or anything).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK, don't jump on me for being a nerd, or anything, but: I do understand the new rules, but they don't make as much sense, mathematically, as the old ones. I mean, before, the AC system was just a case of adding some numbers together... which it still is, only now there aren't as many negative numbers, which is, I suppose, simpler for most people to grasp, but not as fast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's more, they went all politically correct and made it so that all races can be all classes... and in this they removed the main advantages of some races, and, instead of just making it more diverse, actually made it a bit of an aesthetic choice what race one plays. *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On top of that they got rid of the old multi- and duel-class systems, which were great, and replaced them with the new "each new level you get, you are allowed to decide which class to advance in" thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All in all, I think they're doing what everyone does these day's who're in it for the money: cut out all the substance and sell the shell to a larger market. That's exaggerating, but it's the same with games like Deus Ex2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, I've not played the new rules pen-and-paper, so maybe they're OK for that; they just aren't great for computer games.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*ha, if you take this paragraph out of context, it looks like I'm being really racist.

[Korla]

I agree, pete, I only played the old rules, 2nd ed. on paper, but played BG, IWD I and PS:T and then went to NWN and IWD II looking for the same games and found something completely different..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and I have to say I agree it's the same as with just about anything in the world today..bah, this generation being the hope f the future...anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fun games, but I just never hung out with the kind of people who played it seriously...kinda sad, really, they are really fun, but it takes a serious GM.

[dragoncmd]

Just out of interest, which edition are you talking about? Actually no, just asnwer this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you put on a suit of armour, does your armour class go up, or down?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

unfortuanetly that question doesn't work any more (with 3rd and 3.5 comming out recently)

 

 

 

I play 3rd even though I prefer 2nd (the one in which putting on armor makes armor class go down as you so beautifully put it)

[dragoncmd]

i played never winter nights and their expansions, which apperantly use 3.0 rules. people say 3.5 rules are better though. i sit back and look confused :D

 

 

 

i like it in some games. neverwinter nights, and knights of the old republic 1 and 2 all used it pretty well. i didnt like baldurs gate 2 or planescape torment, which are supposedly supposed to follow the rules better, but i just tried those a few weeks ago so i missed the hey day of those sort of games. ive never played d&d on paper, no one to play with and id feel like a complete nerd rather than just a 80% nerd :lol:

 

 

 

I thought we were talking about D&D not its electronic offshoots. (I like bauldurs gate 2: SOA)

[Itachi]

Well yeah I play I'm a noob GM my Step-Dad got me into old Dungeons and Dragons 1st Edition it was pretty sweet so I stuck with it

[Exarch]

The only experience with D&D I've had is playing Icewind Dale. Although I appreciate how indepth and role-playish it is, I don't like the stereotypes it places on races/classes. Many fantasy games do this. Your a dark elf, can you be good? No, dark elves are always evil! No dwarf magicians either, dwarves are technologists!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even the game I am playing now does this (Guild Wars).. all monks look clean, shaven, like angels. While all warriors are big and brutish, and all necromancers are "evil" looking with bony bodies and scars all over their face.

[Zonorhc]

I regularly play 3.5e, and I like it a lot more than the other editions I've played.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2nd edition had a steep learning curve and unnecessarily complex rules for AC, saves and stat-based bonuses. THAC0 was a disaster in my eyes. And come on, Save vs. Wands?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3rd edition was a marked improvement with the simplification of the whole system and the introduction of the d20 license and the fact that the D&D franchise was no longer under the control of TSR. There were redundant skills and outright broken spells (Haste), but it was better than 2e.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pete, the multiclassing system they have now allows for more versatility and more character development opportunities. In 2e, you were pretty much stuck with what you started off as, regardless of what happened to your character. Now, your human rogue might discover some talent for sorcery, then after a near-death experience involving arcane magic, decide that serving the gods is the way to go. You just couldn't do that in previous editions without house-ruling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Computer-based RPGs using any D&D ruleset are crap. They remove some of the best aspects of the game, like hyper-creative thinking, heavy role-playing and outright interesting spells. I mean, I could have found so many ways to efficiently beat Neverwinter Nights if it was a tabletop module. There's no fun in playing a Wizard in CRPGs because all the fun non-combat-but-can-be-used-creatively spells are usually taken out, like Wall of Stone, Transmute Rock to Mud, Transmute Mud to Rock, Explosive Runes...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've gone off on a tangent here, so I'll stop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the record, I'm currently playing a human evoker/plane shifter.

[my_pet_worm]

i just play the xbox game, alot eaiser :?

[Pete_the_Viscous]

 

Just out of interest, which edition are you talking about? Actually no, just asnwer this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you put on a suit of armour, does your armour class go up, or down?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

unfortuanetly that question doesn't work any more (with 3rd and 3.5 comming out recently)

 

 

 

I play 3rd even though I prefer 2nd (the one in which putting on armor makes armor class go down as you so beautifully put it)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know what you meant, but actually I regard all the new versions as being "post second edition". I wanted to know if it was 2nd edition... or not. :)

[willyhenriksen]

Just out of interest, which edition are you talking about? Actually no, just asnwer this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you put on a suit of armour, does your armour class go up, or down?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

your armor class goes up, you styart at ac 10, that means a monster needs a 11 to beat it. i have currently ac 20 which means they have to get a 21 and then they have to have pluss on hitthrow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

our problem now is that we are caught in a castle whos gonna be invaded every second and i havent bouight any spells yet so....

[indy500fan]

 

i played never winter nights and their expansions, which apperantly use 3.0 rules. people say 3.5 rules are better though. i sit back and look confused :D

 

 

 

i like it in some games. neverwinter nights, and knights of the old republic 1 and 2 all used it pretty well. i didnt like baldurs gate 2 or planescape torment, which are supposedly supposed to follow the rules better, but i just tried those a few weeks ago so i missed the hey day of those sort of games. ive never played d&d on paper, no one to play with and id feel like a complete nerd rather than just a 80% nerd :lol:

 

 

 

I thought we were talking about D&D not its electronic offshoots. (I like bauldurs gate 2: SOA)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eh, thats the only expirience with d&d i had so i shared it. i still like other computer rpgs better though, that turn based thing can kindof get annoying.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

I regularly play 3.5e, and I like it a lot more than the other editions I've played.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2nd edition had a steep learning curve and unnecessarily complex rules for AC, saves and stat-based bonuses. THAC0 was a disaster in my eyes. And come on, Save vs. Wands?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3rd edition was a marked improvement with the simplification of the whole system and the introduction of the d20 license and the fact that the D&D franchise was no longer under the control of TSR. There were redundant skills and outright broken spells (Haste), but it was better than 2e.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pete, the multiclassing system they have now allows for more versatility and more character development opportunities. In 2e, you were pretty much stuck with what you started off as, regardless of what happened to your character. Now, your human rogue might discover some talent for sorcery, then after a near-death experience involving arcane magic, decide that serving the gods is the way to go. You just couldn't do that in previous editions without house-ruling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Computer-based RPGs using any D&D ruleset are crap. They remove some of the best aspects of the game, like hyper-creative thinking, heavy role-playing and outright interesting spells. I mean, I could have found so many ways to efficiently beat Neverwinter Nights if it was a tabletop module. There's no fun in playing a Wizard in CRPGs because all the fun non-combat-but-can-be-used-creatively spells are usually taken out, like Wall of Stone, Transmute Rock to Mud, Transmute Mud to Rock, Explosive Runes...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just disagree with you, that's all--I prefer the old, "complicated" rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah.. it does give you more versatility, that's true. That doesn't necessarily make it better; I preferred it when it was more restrictive... I just did, and can't really explain it. It is a bit more realistic in the new versions, too. Meh, that's not the point of a game, though, is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, just because computer games can't handle the whole imagination doesn't mean that they aren't good. They're good, but not at all the same, that's all. It's like comparing an FPS to actually shooting someone, or an RTS to commanding an army.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, for the record, though, they do have explosive runes; they're just not all that well implemented. Actually, it's not explosive runes, is it? Ah well, similar things, like glyphs of warding and the ilk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That, and I like TSR, too.

[Zonorhc]

I really didn't like the "expanding" quality of the Fireball spell in 2e. That was hell in small, connecting rooms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, I like the fact that all classes advance at the same rate, instead of having independent XP tables for each one. I also like the idea of Prestige Classes better than Kits, even though PrCs now are pretty much just tools to boost power rather than to actually represent membership in a specific organisation. I'm trying to get my group to realise that, but eh...

[Uldric]

I used to play official dnd about a year ago and really enjoyed it. The Living Greyhawk campaign I think it was called, and the area it was set in was Perrenland (being the place where "Australia" was situated). I quit after getting my character to 8th level, 7th level rogue/ 1st level barbarian halfling. :lol:

 

 

 

I haven't played the 3.5 rules before (I think), what are the main differences between it and 3.0?

[Zonorhc]

They streamlined the skills, rebalanced classes and spells, added some feats, changed the names of a few combat maneouvres and basically overhauled the game so it works a little smoother. That, and every supplement they release nowadays is for 3.5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Man I'd love to play in the Living Greyhawk campaign...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Better get myself an RPGA membership.

[willyhenriksen]

i like the avatar of Zonorhc asince he got a d20 there, we played a cccampain called " a dark and stormy knight" and our dm is evil...

[monkey_933]

I LOVE D&D!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is the funnest game, me and my bro played all the time when i was like 8. Then on the move over to germany the movers lost it :twisted: and we couldnt play anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had really fun though, i think i would always cheat against meh bro 8)

[willyhenriksen]

it was so fun when our elfmagician was gonna cast a sleep magic against some monsters, he hit our 80 kilos dwarf so he falled asleep for 5 rounds :lol:

[dragoncmd]

The only experience with D&D I've had is playing Icewind Dale. Although I appreciate how indepth and role-playish it is, I don't like the stereotypes it places on races/classes. Many fantasy games do this. Your a dark elf, can you be good? No, dark elves are always evil! No dwarf magicians either, dwarves are technologists!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even the game I am playing now does this (Guild Wars).. all monks look clean, shaven, like angels. While all warriors are big and brutish, and all necromancers are "evil" looking with bony bodies and scars all over their face.

 

 

 

dark elves are always evil?

 

 

 

Who's Drizzt Do-Urden then? (possibly the most well known character in D&D)

 

 

 

Read the Dark elf trilogy by R.A. Salvatore (good author too)

[dragoncmd]

I regularly play 3.5e, and I like it a lot more than the other editions I've played.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2nd edition had a steep learning curve and unnecessarily complex rules for AC, saves and stat-based bonuses. THAC0 was a disaster in my eyes. And come on, Save vs. Wands?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3rd edition was a marked improvement with the simplification of the whole system and the introduction of the d20 license and the fact that the D&D franchise was no longer under the control of TSR. There were redundant skills and outright broken spells (Haste), but it was better than 2e.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pete, the multiclassing system they have now allows for more versatility and more character development opportunities. In 2e, you were pretty much stuck with what you started off as, regardless of what happened to your character. Now, your human rogue might discover some talent for sorcery, then after a near-death experience involving arcane magic, decide that serving the gods is the way to go. You just couldn't do that in previous editions without house-ruling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Computer-based RPGs using any D&D ruleset are crap. They remove some of the best aspects of the game, like hyper-creative thinking, heavy role-playing and outright interesting spells. I mean, I could have found so many ways to efficiently beat Neverwinter Nights if it was a tabletop module. There's no fun in playing a Wizard in CRPGs because all the fun non-combat-but-can-be-used-creatively spells are usually taken out, like Wall of Stone, Transmute Rock to Mud, Transmute Mud to Rock, Explosive Runes...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've gone off on a tangent here, so I'll stop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the record, I'm currently playing a human evoker/plane shifter.

 

 

 

I personally liked 2nd edition but I understand you complaients

 

 

 

I think they ruined the ranger (my favorite class) in 3.5 by giving it hide in plain sight which is the most un-realistic ability ever thought up (though a few stupid prestige classes had it in 3.5)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What was wrong with haste?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For what you said about the computer games. I understand your complaints about not having enough freedom to do what you want (try morrowind its not D&D based but its an extremely good game in that aspect) but I thought that most of the ones for pc were done extremely well but the console games took the fun of character creation (argueably the most important part of D&D) out of the game and even though I have not played the console games I do not see any way they could have made up for this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where is the "plane shifter" class from? Also do you use a premade campaign setting or a homemade one (I use Forgotten Realms though I have practice making more than a few cities because I am always stuck being DM)