September 1st 2000, CURRENT COMMENTARY ON 3RD EDITION D&D

The time has come, sooner than expected, to revise this page yet again. Information and opinions are flying back and forth rather rapidly, some hating the new game, others caring not, many others rallying around its banner in support.

Seems information coming my way still cannot be taken as factual, as I thought. I've had players say this is what the new systems says, then I posted it, only later to have others email me and claim it is in error. So, things are still in flux. But first I find I better make some of my positions perfectly clear as I'm confusing too many people (never a good sign for clarity of writing).

First let me dissuade any of the notion my goal in life is to convince you to not buy 3rd edition D&D. Second, I must also point out that when I speak of problems with 3rd ed., this is nothing new to this site as I speak at length about problems with 2nd ed. or even 1st ed. AD&D. I'm not suggesting you don't buy or play those editions anymore than I'm suggesting you don't buy or play 3rd ed. I only mean to suggest I find certain rules lacking, and I explain why they are lacking, I hope, and make suggestions as what might be done about them, or at least, show what has worked for me, a 20 year veteran of the roleplaying hobby.

Next, some feel I'm belittling them or their preferred style of play by throwing around the label "munchkin," for example. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is one style of play, and though I do not agree with it and certainly prefer a more roleplaying approach to roleplaying games, this does not mean it is wrong or the players who enjoy that style are wrong to do so. At best, it means they will not be playing with me or others who dislike that style of play. Furthermore, it seems almost a natural development of younger players to move through these other stages of play or experience these other styles first before moving on, if they move on. Many eventually become excellent roleplayers, so I'm hardly one to arrest their development and stomp on their fun. I say keep on gaming and ignore me if what I say seems totally foolish to you (just book mark this page and read it again in 5 years). Then you'll see how full of crap I was after all, eh ;-)

Similarly, if anywhere on my site you see me taking exception to mini-maxing, Monty Haulism, Killer DMs, Hack and Slashing, or any number of other approaches to this hobby, do not think I mean no one should enjoy these things, for many do. I only claim and maintain I enjoy a more roleplaying approach (some people hate it, and rightly so for it doesn't offer what they are looking for in a game).

I also strive for a more realistic approach to gaming, within reason. Others detest that level of realism with a vengeance. I love it, I'm willing to tell all who will listen about it, and I'll even explain why I believe that style holds more promise than the others do. But this is all just my opinions about my preferences, and anyone who thinks I'm attacking them personally if they hold a different opinion should more carefully read my articles with this in mind.

Next, I have not yet, and may well never buy 3rd D&D (though I may too, so don't go down that incorrect path either). A lot of that just comes from my age, having gone though two editions already, not having tons of local players to try out the new game, and, in general, just waiting for a better reason to do so. Truth is, I feel there is nothing (that I've seen so far) that 3rd ed. does that I can't simply adopt for the 2nd ed. games, and many things I do as improvements to standard 2nd ed. I already feel are superior to what 3rd ed. is now doing. Though 3rd ed. may be doing it better than standard 2nd ed., it is a step backwards for me. This does not mean you shouldn't buy 3rd simply because I haven't felt the need. In fact, unless, like me, you are happy with 2nd ed. even though you may have adjusted it to your taste to make it so, then you probably should explore the option to buy 3rd ed. if you think it will solve what ails you about 2nd ed.

In fact, if you are 20 years old or younger and still like AD&D, I'd go so far as to suggest you do buy it as you'll probably be gaming long enough yet and will come in contact with the up and coming generation of gamers, and you should remain current and keep abreast of the game. You can buy 4th edition too if you are still going strong, but that's a harder decision and will depend on where you are in 10 years (assuming).

And it should be clear from what I'm saying that I have NOT read 3rd ed., but am taking email submissions about the rules, opinions, etc., and have been posting them with commentary. If you wish to have your say, write me. I may well ignore you if your letter doesn't cover new ground, but I may take much from it and post it as well. It just depends. Mostly, it's likely I'll read it, absorb it, reformulate my opinions, and write another update and you might not recognize your opinion though it may well be included and was taken into account.

Now, I have suggested that 3rd edition D&D does cater to more munchkinism and hack and slashing and combat than 2nd ed. did, and I genuinely fear this may mean new players picking up the game for the first time may be MORE inclined to think combat is the primary goal in such games. I may even have moved off combat sooner and looked to roleplaying earlier rather than later because 1st ed. AD&D combat was rather shoddy. This may or may not be true of the new system, and even if it is true, wouldn't preclude the possibility they (newbies) may eventually use the system for more roleplaying and less hack and slashing, and certainly wouldn't prevent experienced players from using it as a basis for their ROLEPLAYING games. In fact, game mechanics seems much improved and it is more consistent and easier to learn (so I'm told). High is ALWAYS good. (Legalize 3rd ed. today!;-) If poor game mechanics was your problem with 2nd ed., then rejoice. It wasn't my problem, however, and I didn't find 2nd ed. difficult to understand or keep straight in my head.

Now, on to more email letter inspired commentary.

It has been suggested (I like this one) that all newbies need move through a hack and slash phase just to come to grips with the game mechanics, and only after they do this may they settle down and have a harder look at roleplaying. Thus, 3rd ed. makes it easier to learn combat so one can more readily move past combat and on to more important matters. Did you like that? I smiled.

Others are reporting 3rd ed. combat is certainly better than 2nd ed. crap, and not so full of garbage as Skills and Powers or Combat and Tactics was. So does this mean that 3rd ed. combat falls somewhere in between garbage and crap? Well, I'm sure they meant that as a compliment ;-) So, it has better combat. Yet, I don't know why they feel that way as what I've heard makes the cyclic nature of the round seem artificial and unrealistic, but the consistent 1d20 system may be easier to deal with and learn, so AC and THAC0 conversion might help matters. Reports also speak of clarification of combat opportunities and better-defined movement. Like anything, however, you never know until you see it and play it. Sorry, that's not much in the way of a report, but I'm getting mixed letters yet which, at best, signifies it will depend on what you like in combat and how much combat you want in your game. But dependent things do mean that without clear consensus, whether you'll like it is up for grabs yet.

Some are saying there are actual rules or the system itself now makes it harder to mini max than before. Actually, the term mini maxing simply means getting the maximum you can for minimum effort under the RULES, so I don't know how the rules can prevent that, which is why I feel what they really meant was the new system makes it harder to create unbalanced characters. I'm not sure how they do this. I hope they aren't using xp penalties and bonuses on races for game balance as such things are problematic and hard to justify on the IC (In Character) level, but I suspect they are doing this and without apology or much in the way of explanation other than the suggestion that game balance requires it.

There ARE (another reversal) xp penalties for various multiclass combinations. I guess some cultural (not quite racial but mostly it will work that way) aptitude allows some to forgo a few penalties, but for the most part, if you take more than one class there may be a 10% xp penalty should they begin to diverge in level. If your classes get far apart, the penalty is worse (20%). If triple class, this is cumulative (could be 40% for example). I don't understand it but I'm locked in an old way of thinking about what xp is (experience, learning, etc.) and now it is more a game number you spend.

So, in the new system it seems a 5th level fighter/5th level thief might get N xp, but a 5th level fighter/3rd level thief would get 80% of N for the same thing. Why? I have no idea. It doesn't even make sense game balance wise. Obviously they wish to punish anyone who doesn't keep their levels close, and this might dissuade players from taking one class to have base skills and then more or less ignore it. Thus, if a 1st level thief/1st level mage wished to forgo learning more thief levels and concentrate on just being a mage for the rest of his life, they would have a penalty and this penalty would get big and persist for ever and ever and ever. He ought to find a vampire to drain his thief level away so he can forgo that penalty. LOL, well, I'm not sure that would work. In the final analysis, if you take more than one class and aren't from the right race, there are nasty penalties.

Retroactive learning may be a problem. For example, you gain xp and then, apparently, after you have it, decide what you learned with it instead of knowing first what you were learning. That is sort of like going to college for 4 years, finishing, THEN deciding on your major. Well, not quite that bad, but you get the idea. So if you gained a lot of xp as a mage doing mage things and then found an item only usable by clerics at the 11th hour, you could become a cleric with the xp you earned before you knew you wanted to be a cleric.

Many write their support and also dislike the new one-hour for regaining spells rule and think of it as unrealistic. Quickly fixed, if you've a mind to, but as is, unrealistic. One letter suggested this was up to an hour and not just an hour, but no formula was given to determine how you found out what fraction this would be.

Using xp to pay for things still bugs me. So, a high level wizard who just went up a level by one xp has forgotten how to make a potion? After all, he can't spend his xp, which would take him down a level. Then, if locked in an alchemist lab where he could only escape my making a potion, he couldn't do it. Sure, silly, but it is a flaw. He should be allowed to spend his xp even if he goes down a level (just keep the power and owe xp to the world, subtracting them from what he'll get in future). Otherwise, the game system can be felt working in the world and the gamer's footprint is revealed to the PCs. Ick.

I've seen a bit of the spell caster's augmentation of spells with Meta magic feats. They may, by preparing spells at one, two, three, or four levels higher, I think, do things like increase the range, do 150% normal damage, extend duration, make it so quick you could cast two spells in one round, maximize damage, and other things like that. Before if you wanted to augment a spell you had to research a special version of that one spell, put it in your spell book (probably at higher level with more expensive material components or something) and that was that. Now, it may be a spell caster can do this with any spell in his book. This would make a 3rd level 10 HD fireball, for example, possibly cast at 8th level (two more levels to do 150% and 3 more levels to maximize damage), so it would do 90 hit points instead of an average of 35. Sure, 8th level is high, but then think of the traps that can be set at maximum now. Suffice it to say with this kind of extra diversity, spell casters seem to have been made more powerful, perhaps reversing TSR's trend to sap their power.

Of course, they are making spell casters spend xp left and right to make stuff and cast certain spells, so again it is not a big thing for PCs (compared to the NPCs). Thus, your relatively young PC will remain low (probably for the duration of the campaign as he has to spend his xp and is prevented from going up levels as fast that way), while a world of older NPCs (who have been around years, possibly centuries longer), may well be tossing around 90 HP fireballs at you. I know if I was going to make a trap, I'd make the best one I could, and now it is possible to maximize damage. And this almost makes it unrealistic for any mage capable of an 8th level spells not to have 90 HP traps, and probably more than one, so look out. Also, with the quick augmentation, such a mage might be able to blast your party for 90 HPs and then cast yet again (dimension door out of there). They could before, it just took more effort, but those hit and run tactics really bite the big one, and now they'll be worse (or better, if you are the mage). Oh well, too much of this is guesswork, so don't be too afraid of the speculation.

It was interesting to learn that death (unless 1st level) no longer cost a CON point but cost one level. Doesn't seem to matter if you are 2nd level or 20th level, it cost one level and not the same xp, so death is really nasty the higher level you are. Maybe restoration will regain those lost xp? Wow, hard to speculate. I'm going to have to quit updating this page, so I might just take it off. Well, maybe later.

Sorry to see they have some EXCLUSIVE skills, like reading lips only may be learned by a rogue (or is it thief?). Guess having a hearing impaired person in your family and learning to read lips means you're a den of thieves. OK, OK, I'm joking a bit, but anyone should be able to learn a skill given enough time. Again, it's just another thing quickly fixed and not a reason to avoid 3rd ed., just some aspect of it you should look at harder.

Casting raise dead (5th level) costs you a diamond worth at least 500 gp. Casting resurrection (7th level) costs you a sprinkle of holy water and a diamond worth at least 500 gp (and you'll need the recipient's body parts there as well.) Casting true resurrection (9th level) costs you a sprinkle of holy water and a diamond worth at least 5,000 gp, but it can be used even if the body has been wholly destroyed for up to 10 years per level. None of these spells bring back death from old age or if the being's soul doesn't want to come back.

As always, I prefer when the DM sets the price for material components and spell use weights or something other than subjective economic values that radically differ from one world to the next. In one world one GP may let you live like a king for a month while in another, it would be insulting to bribe someone with only one GP. You can see the problem then, one world RD is too expensive to ever have and the other it's a joke not to have. I had heard casting those spells might cost xp as well, but if so, he didn't include that information.

I'm told the art is very nice and it's a well organize and beautiful book, so that's good.

Looking over submissions on the ALIGNMENT system I can assure you it is decidedly better than before. Chaotic Neutrals are no longer portrayed as random, crazy fools, true neutrals are no longer bent out of shape by notions of personally maintaining cosmic balance, and other things are better done. And though I'm not 100% happy with the new system, I'd give it a B+ or an A- where before it perhaps earned a D. So, you can look forward to a better-defined alignment system. Yet, they keep detect good/evil, though I hear know alignment is gone, so that's an improvement too.

I found it interesting that a mage needed higher intelligence to cast spells than before. They need, I'm told, an INT of 10+N to cast a Nth level spell. So, 16 INT to cast 6th level, 19 INT to cast 9th level, etc. Even low level mages need higher INT. Before an INT of 9 could let you cast 4th level spells; now you need an INT of 14 to do the same. Human Arch Mages need to be more intelligent than they can initially be to cast wish (i.e., gotta up their INT to 19, and assuming it starts at 18 tops, it needs tweaking. Guess 18 INT isn't enough). Too bad, as the problems of playing characters more INT than yourself are going to get worse, I think.

Of course, you get to add 1 to your stats every 4 levels (I still think it's a mistake not to charge more for higher stats and less for lower stats). Thus, you need to have about 14 INT, maybe 15 INT to start as a mage or will have a much harder time getting to the point where you can cast wishes. I am sorry to say my hopes the ease with which one could raise stats would be used to help shore up failing or lower stats now seems a fool's dream. These stats aren't going to be used to bring up one's lower CHR, or STR or whatever other stat was low and not their primary requisite, but are going to be piled on one's primary more often than not (especially since going from 24 to 25 cost the same as going from 3 to 4). They'll even need such high stats if more upward adjustments like those to INT and spells were made to the other classes. I imagine fighters in particular need much higher STR to recapture the banished advantages of exceptional STR.

All of this may be, of course, some clear sign they wish everyone to play lower level characters and not get much past 12th level, and play single class rather than multi class characters, so maybe that's a good sign they are pushing for lower powered characters. However, since they ran the hit dice out to 20th level and adopted the notion 4 solid sessions (about 3.5 encounters each session) will pop you a level (no matter what level you are at) and blew off level limits, I can feel the 30th to 40th level character coming on, and that's 7 to 10 additional stat points (going from 18 to 28, perhaps). Mmmmm. munchie.

Is 3rd ed. geared up for munchkins? I'm still getting the impression "yes." Is this the end of gaming? Hell no. Can we not use 3rd ed. to roleplay well? Sure we can. Won't experienced players like 3rd ed.? Sure, they may love it, I may love it, but not yet, even if it is more appealing sounding than the last update. But you still gotta check it out if you can, and still should buy it if you got $20 burning a hole in your pocket and are likely to play for another 10 years anyway. What about us old timers? We may even like it. Am I gong to buy it? Not yet, but that's me, but maybe you should as too many out there are screaming at me "It's great you fool, or I'm not I.K.B.," not that anyone understands that reference, but why should they? If you do, I'm amused and amazed.

The long and the short of it is there are a lot of changes. Some real good, some suck. It probably has greater appeal to the younger set, but more experienced players can use it and make it do as they desire, and that's good. It's pretty too.

COMMENTARY ON 3RD EDITION D&D (AS OF AUGUST 19th, 2000 AD)

What ho, good fellows, and roleplayers pay heed, for now 3rd edition is actually out and information is more than mere speculation. And it bodes not well to my sensibilities, this I can tell you with certainty. Seems many feel 3rd edition is geared up for little munchkins, most of the changes dealing with combat or related matters, and characters seem to have that as their goal in life, to acquire skills and feats in this arena, for that is their purpose in life, fighting. Sorry, that's not my idea of a roleplaying game.

You see, my philosophy is one of roleplaying, and this means making choices. While you have significant choices ahead of you, your options are open and you are roleplaying. When your options are severely curtailed and combat ensues, you are not really roleplaying anymore and the game becomes more of a combat game rather than a roleplaying game, at least for a time. And please do not suggest you still have to choose between weapons, whether to drink a potion, cast a spell, or what have you, since that's not the sort of choices I'm taking about at this point.

The more time you spend on combat and combat related matters, the less it looks like a roleplaying game and the more it looks like a combat simulation. Whether 3rd edition does a significantly better job at combat, I cannot really say. One can only assume, giving that it's D&D, they could hardly miss, for as a combat simulation it had no other direction to go but up. However, 1st and 2nd edition AD&D was, or so I was led to believe, never meant to dwell on the minute aspects of combat and did instead strive to gloss over such details in favor of character development, plot, story, intrigue, etc. A rather complex and messy situation (melee) was thus easily handled so one could move through it quickly and get on with more "significant" matters. And, of course, as roleplayers, we accepted these limitations or apparent departures from reality (or tweaked them enough so we could), such that we could get through combat and back to our regularly scheduled story.

Do not misunderstand me. Combat is part of the game, and many story lines (at least on my world) either reach their climax in combat or while barely avoiding it. Thus, combat plays an exceedingly important part of the game. And many skills and powers are primarily of a combative nature. This is fine. It is only when the rest of the game falls by the wayside or is ignored, or the players feel the things leading up to combat are pointless or uninteresting, or worse, feel character development in directions other than becoming a more formidable force on the field of combat is rather pointless, that the game departs from a more roleplaying style and enters the realm of hack and slash, mini maxing, and Monty Haulism. If you enjoy playing like that, that's your call, but I will probably not be joining you in your quest to find yet another reason (assuming you even need one) to enter the fray and have at it once again, whatever "it" may be this week.

I mention all this as TSR and/or WOTC, so I'm being led to believe from numerous email feedback, have clearly geared the game up to go in that direction and have not improved it for the roleplayer. Fine, that's their business, and as they sell 90% (I'm guessing, I admit) of their product to young, inexperienced, new gamers who almost invariably must pass through the hack and slash stages before they acquire a "greater" sense of character and character development, they may even have made the wise business choice. Do not, however, mistake 3rd edition as an improvement in a roleplaying game just because they fixed some game mechanical "problems."

Well, with that said, here's a bit more commentary on certain aspects of 3rd edition D&D. Some of it is in italics as it was lifted from a letter sent to me describing some of what he found in the new player's handbook.

1. There is no XP penalty for non-humans and no XP bonus for humans (as I had been told). The "balance" comes into play in that humans get 4 extra skill points, and one extra feat, at 1st level. Of course, this doesn't eliminate the problems or my concerns. Why do humans get these when non-humans do not, for example, and the potential for non-human races to outstrip their human counterparts in the various classes. Given that any race may be any class, and can multi-class with little restriction (a paladin or monk who changes class cannot advance as a paladin or monk again, but that's about the only multi-class restriction), it would seem that non-humans, particularly elves, would grossly out-level humans in the long haul.

Sadly, when you treat your PCs like game pieces and dwell on aspects of what is happening only in your own little group of PCs, there is a tendency to overlook the logical consequences of certain things on the NPC front. The world in which your human PC finds themselves may well be balanced with your non-human PC, starting out together, playing under the same rules, etc., and it may not look like any problem might arise at this rate. Trouble is, that rate is not indicative of the rest of that world (in all probability the world wasn't, as for as they are concerned, created just for them to play in and has been in existence for millions or billions of years), and NPC elves or other non-human characters may have been around for centuries. So if the rules would allow a non-human PC to achieve godly levels, given time (chortle chortle, chortle, for we all know they'll never get that time in any "real" game), then it must be true, baring some clever rule or justification proposed by your local DM, that demi-human NPCs are, on average, quite powerful. This will mean your PCs should expect to be dealing with many more high level individuals than before, and your PCs will probably not have a say in the matter as their input is less than significant. They will do as they are told by those who are powerful enough to let their will be done, and that's now most of them, those lofty levels being rather commonplace amongst the NPC demi-humans as no level limits are there to suggest otherwise.

So, if before, you complained your DM was being unrealistic by having a high level character on every street corner who happened to be ready, willing, and able to get in your PC's face, now you have little to complain about, for there probably will be numerous high level types walking the streets (assuming they are demi-humans), and this will be realistic. Oh well. You can always ignore logic, I suppose, and claim something along the lines of "It's just a game; it's not supposed to make sense."

For those DMs conscious of this fallacy, it may be appropriate to reintroduce old level limits, or impose other restrictions, to give the system a much-needed balance with regard to level advancement for the various races. The option of giving demi-humans less xp (or humans more xp) has too many problems. We wish to have a system that is both balanced for our PCs in our actual group of players, and does not get seriously out of whack for the NPCs who will populate the world. Both must work, or neither will.

Level limits did this for many, for any number of reasons could be devised as to why demi-humans were so limited in that regard, yet not seriously effect game play within the group. This takes care of the NPC problem. Yet, the game balance problem remained in some cases where the game was low powered or slow in developing such that multi-class demi-humans started out as way too powerful in comparison and stayed there the entire run of the game, the level limits never entering into the picture as the group never got that high. Clearly, if you played in such an arena, restrictions on multi classing would be appropriate, expected, and highly recommended as well. For example, no triple class crap would be allowed, the demands of two classes (outside of adventuring) eats up most of their free time as they must use an awful lot of it just to maintain such wide ranging skills, and the economic burdens imposed by two sets of equipment, etc. These things are important, so one should realize being double classed is not just having all the good points of two classes, but all the bad points of both classes as well. Furthermore, dual classing for humans has its own problems, but these come into play in higher level games where the level limits should come into play. Other solutions are also possible and recommended.

2. The class system, as you know, is completely different. When you gain a level, you can add that level to your current class, or take a single level in another (possibly new) class. The barbarian and monk have been brought back, and a new class, the sorcerer, is introduced. The sorcerer is essentially a magician that does NOT need spell books. He can cast spells "on the fly," but is balanced in his limited spell list (whereas the wizard can have any number of spells, but must use a spell book).

Personally, I simply prefer my mana system that made spell casters more versatile than standard play without making them overly powerful at the same time. Being tied to a spell book is not that bad (unless the DM takes extra measures to make it a pain in the ass, and if he does that, then playing a standard mage could be a rather dismal experience). I know I wouldn't care to play in a world where my character was regularly denied the tools of his trade, and if it doesn't happen regularly enough, the sorcerer is not much of an advantage to warrant his inclusion. Perhaps there is more to it than I've been told, however, but for the moment, it looks foolish.

One thing I particularly hate is that ALL spells (for given any spellcaster class, including. cleric, magicians, etc.) can be reacquired in one hour. For high level spell-casters, that amounts to dozens of spells that can be regained in a matter of 60 minutes. Each spell list of each class represents a "daily maximum," so a wizard could NOT relearn all of his spells twice, three times, etc. within one day. Thus, the game loses what seems to be a realistic quality in favor of ease of bookkeeping, I think. I suppose one can invent reasons why a high level arch mage could learn, for example, 132 levels of spells in 60 minutes while the same high level wizard would similarly take 60 minutes to re-memorize just a Magic Missile, if that is all that were missing, but it seems off to me.

3. The skill system has been COMPLETELY reworked. Skills are designated as either "Training only" (which require the allotment of skill points, at least 1, to use that skill) and "Untrained", meaning ANY character can use the skill, but may STILL allot skill points to it in order to improve chances of success.

For example, Hide is an "untrained" skill (any character could attempt it). To succeed at it requires a d20 roll, modified by dexterity, armor penalty (if any) and skill ranks (i.e. skill points) allotted to it. If the number rolled exceeds the Spot check (modified by wisdom, race, and skill ranks, if any) of the observer(s), then the character succeeds at hiding from the observer(s).

Each class has a list of relevant skills available at normal cost. Those that are "cross-classed" (skills not on a given class's list) cost 1 extra skill point per skill rank (i.e. per +1). In some respects, this is similar to 2nd edition. (In the initial cost at least).

Well, nothing about that inspires me to buy 3rd edition, for my skill system does all that and more. My way, however, does necessitate learning several systems or ways to do things, and 3rd edition was trying to make one reigning system to deal with everything. That's fine. I may even adopt some of this, in time, but too many other things bother me about 3rd edition such that I'm not all that eager to get off my butt and even buy a copy yet.

4. "Feats", are things your character can do (such as brew potions, fight from horseback w/o penalties, specialize in weapons, etc.) that do not call for skill checks or ability checks.

I've been told too many of these feats are combat related. Maybe they are, I'm not sure.

5. Combat and saving throws rely on relevant modifiers, such as ability scores and level in each class. Each class has a specified combat modifier (which increases by level, depending on class) that is added to the attack roll. Add to this number the strength (or dexterity for missile weapons) and you produce a final modifier added to the d20 roll. If the number is equal to or higher than the victim's AC (all ACs in 3rd edition. are scaled from 10 on upward, producing an exact number that must be exceeded via d20) then you roll damage.

Say your 10th level fighter has an 18 strength. To hit an orc wearing leather armor but who has no dexterity modifiers (10 + 2 for leather = AC 12), he would roll 1d20 and add 14 (+10 for his fighter levels and +4 for strength). If he rolled a 20 (or 19-20, depending on weapon) he would score a critical hit (x2 or x3 [again, depending on weapon] AFTER strength and magic pluses are factored in).

Uh huh, yeah, so what? It seems fine, but is it worth it considering the other changes?

So where are I now, opinion wise on matters concerning 3rd edition? I'm not happy. Alas, what else is new? Many tell me (though I freely admit all of them are already experienced gamers) that they will continue to play 2nd edition AD&D, though I've gotten my first letter from a guy (I'm not sure how old he is) who wishes to embrace 3rd edition D&D, though even he admits they should compile about 50 pages of house rules to satisfactorily repair the new system and make it roleplayer friendly. Good luck, in either case. I will always maintain that the game mechanical system that supports your roleplaying efforts isn't as important as the actual roleplaying, and whatever system helps you achieve roleplaying, no matter how much you may wish to adjust it, is fine with me.

PREVIOUS FEARS ON 3RD EDITION D&D

Once again I am flooded with more information about 3rd edition D&D, but unlike before when I saw good and bad points or felt it was still just a guess as to what may be coming, this seems mostly bad, and worse, its certainty is higher. Specifically, I will mostly address the problem of experience points; experience tables, levels, and associated problems stemming from experience.

I now have excellent reasons to believe that 3rd edition is not just a revamp of 2nd edition (as 2nd edition was a revamp of 1st edition), but is, in fact, more along the lines of a whole new game. Yes, there are many things that look like a simple rework or a new way to do the old stuff (like the new rolls to hit and the new AC ratings, since they just use simple conversions and go in a different direction, they are essentially the same thing and only use different numbers to represent the same thing), but an awful lot of 3rd edition D&D is very different.

This dashes my hopes of incorporating 3rd edition and 2nd edition into a synthesis or a marriage of two versions of the same game, the same way I was able to combine the best of 1st edition and 2nd edition into one game. 3rd edition is now going to make 1st and 2nd edition pretty much obsolete. Some things are so radically altered that it will be difficult if not impossible (or nearly so) to freely mix all editions and take what you like. I'm sorry to say it, but it looks like if you wish to use 3rd edition, you will more or less be abandoning 1st and 2nd edition and having to buy all new materials (perhaps part of their goal at TSR and WOTC, but I'm just a bit mercenary in my thinking, so you be the judge on that yourself).

THE NEW EXPERIENCE TABLE

Apparently, there will be little correlation between xp from one system to the next. By that I mean if an orc (or whatever) was worth X experience points before, it is now going to be worth a very different number (maybe higher, maybe lower, and what it is worth will also depend and your character's current abilities as well). This will mean you can't use old xp values, for example, and will have to use new listings, new tables, or new guidelines found in new books, etc. for the xp awards.

Level progression will use the following formula:

N*(N-1)*500 is the minimum xp needed to get to Nth level.

For example, to get to 20th level, you will need 20*(19)*500 = 190,000 xp, or to get to 9th level you will need 9*(8)*500 = 36,000 xp. Before, you needed something like 3,000,000 to get to 20th level (or 15 to 16 times what you now need in actual points). This demonstrates you should get far fewer points than before (in actual numbers), but the points are worth much more in and of themselves in the new system. But you can see the problems of trying to use old xp ratings for new things. Major conversion headaches loom on the horizon for any that will try.

In fact, they seem to have balanced things such that there is NO exponential nature to the xp tables or the level advancements, or what little there is is naturally canceled out when your character's level factors into it. By that I mean they have tried to make the game such that no matter what level you or your party are currently at, it should still take the same amount of game time or the same number of encounters (appropriate as they must be for your level) to advance in level.

For example, they mentioned needing about 4 good sessions to go up a level no matter what level you were at. If a 1st level party, it should take 4 sessions (of 1st level stuff) to get to 2nd level, and if a 19th level party, it should take 4 sessions (of 19th level stuff) to get to 20th level, and also, for the sake of the ridiculous, if a 199th level party, it should take 4 sessions to get to 200th level.

WARNING: As a personal note, I believe nothing could be worse for the game of AD&D than losing the exponential nature of the experience tables. 1st and 2nd editions were fine until the xp tables topped out (around 20th level) and became linear. This meant demi-humans of considerable longevity would, in effect, be able to achieve hundreds if not thousands of levels in their life times. (Only level limits prevented that problem, and wily DMs could invent in world reasons why other races were limited in levels other than game balance reasons).

For example, if an elven character wonders why they seem to have a problem getting beyond a certain skill (level) when their human counter part has no difficulty, no in world character could tell them "Game Balance, that's way stupid." because they should have no clue they are characters in a game. But if the DM instead contrived (for reasons of game balance, naturally) that demi humans had spirits and not souls and were limited in the sheer power of the universe they could incorporate into their being because of this fundamental universal difference in the nature of such things, the character might understand this without finding out they were a game piece and nothing more than an imaginary character).

How 3rd edition will explain anyway the fact that humans seem to learn quicker (have a 10% xp bonus due to game balance) than non-humans on the character level is still a mystery to me. Still, some wily DM may devise a clever reason. I hope so, for explaining to your elf character he learns more slowly because he is less intelligent or less wise or somehow less than human is not going to sit well with any decent ROLE player, IMHO, though hack and slashers and other ROLL players probably won't care as they treat their characters like game pieces more often than not anyway.

So, I was happy when I was given reason to believe that though they eliminated level limits for non-humans, the exponential nature of the xp table became so large so quickly that even with their longevity, demi humans would not far surpass humans in levels. And now, once again, these hopes are down the toilet, and it looks more official than ever (very badly done, WOTC, very badly done indeed).

For no matter what their current xp table says or how it is arranged, based upon the premise it take 4 solid sessions to go up a level, non humans with decent longevity will quickly become overly powerful. The new xp table is not exponential enough, and you may say, "So what?" This foolish attitude often springs from those who fail to consider what's happening in the DM's world apart from their PCs or group of PCs (like thinking the world revolves around them, because it actually does). Thus, your human PC and your friend's non human PC who start out in the game together at 1st level will never see this problem arise between them because they have been adventuring the same amount of time. This may lull them into a false sense that such problems wouldn't arise elsewhere in the world too since are not a problem and they don't arise in the party.

The logical consequences of demi human NPCs, however, is that a fair cross section of the population of demi human NPC adventurers will have been adventuring for tens or even hundreds of years and will be hundreds of levels higher in experience (without an exponential nature to the xp table, or without level limits). I have spoken about it before (see below in previous opinions of 3rd edition D&D).

This article preserves each point of view as it changes over time (the latest and newer ones are near the top, and the lower you go, the more out of date you are getting). My 1st view sounded the disaster warning, my second view said it looked like it might be alright or that it would be alright given the new information, and now my third reverts to many of my original concerns as the information now appears to have been faulty. And even worse for the older players too, for they can pretty much shelf their 1st and 2nd edition material if they plan to go 3rd at all, or spend an inordinate amount of time converting every number in the book.

Naturally, however, this will not affect sales too badly, as the veteran players pretty much have stopped buying the bulk of materials after their first 10 years and use what they have or make up the rest. The younger set is the target audience, so that was a major factor, I'm sure, in anything TSR or WOTC decided to do.

Now, don't misunderstand me, for without actually playing 3rd edition, I can't really see all the problems or tell if some other factors are going to help balance my concerns, but I can't find them as of this time.

Experience points also seems to be used for payments (casting certain spells, creating potions or scrolls or other more permanent magic items, and even dying seems to cause one to lose a level's worth of xp (this is a guess based upon something I read, though it may no longer cost a point of constitution for all I know or I may have read it incorrectly).

This use of xp as payments means, fundamentally, that experience points are no longer a measure of experience so much as some game number, some rewards or awards, or some innate power, but it is NOT what your character knows or what your character has learned. Thus, at the very least, it is now poorly named and probably should bear the name of power points or character points or some such other designation that doesn't imply actual knowledge.

For example, making a potion you never made before, you would think you would learn from such an experience, but here you lose xp (and in fact can't even remember how to make the potion if your xp are right on the level limits, as there is some rule that suggests you can't spend xp such that you would go below that level limit). If you die but are brought back from the dead, that's a heck of an experience and you'd probably learn a lot, but you lose xp. It's horrible, but only if you continue to think of experience points as actual experience or knowledge.

Before, a DM could use xp to simulate problems in roleplaying around the issue of self-doubt about one's ethical concerns. For example, if you said your character was lawful good and he behaved in an evil fashion more than he should, where, as DM, I didn't take away xp, I did tend to suspend a certain amount of their future xp awards until they sorted themselves out and decided upon what they wished to learn or how they wished to operate (which was effectively losing xp, but not quite). In the new system, they flat out tell you xp is not to be used that way (perhaps that's good) and such players should simply be invited to leave the game (oh well, so much for working things out with rewards and penalties).

No, I'm sorry to say, if 3rd edition wanted to go this way, there are far better ways to do it (but they would rely less on new tables in new books and wouldn't require one to purchase them, darn it). Awarding character points, for example, and using character points to buy skills is far better than xp and levels IF you do not wish to use xp for other things (like adding an exponential limiting factor into the game or slowing progression, or limiting levels in demi humans, etc.). In fact, with their new skill system, it would have been time to abandon the CLASS system all together in favor of KITS. The way they have it now, levels and xp should have become a thing of the past and have been unnecessarily preserved (perhaps just to maintain that ol' AD&D flavor).

Now, I could go on and on about how this new rule or that new rule would have been better worded this or that way (just as my site often does for 2nd edition AD&D), or make an extensive commentary on 3rd edition if I were to purchase it, but as it is fundamentally different (and I'm getting the feeling more geared up for younger players since they are the ones who will buy it, and who dwell in the realm of hack and slash or munchkinism anyway, though I could very well be wrong about that) it begins to look like the probability of my acquiring even the PHB of 3rd edition just to have a good look is pretty low at this time.

Does this mean you shouldn't have a look? No, you should, and if a younger player, it will probably be better to get into the new system and make corrections as you feel you need them. And if an older player, you should also have look, if you have the time or find it easy to glance through the material without some Herculean effort on your part or major drain on your coffers. I, at least, will not be going in that direction for some time. It seems that bad, from what I can now tell, (or just that different), that it would not bring me joy and amusement if I were to follow that path and abandon a game I love. What few things are similar enough might still be transplanted, but most of it looks ill conceived, or rather, incompatible with previous editions and ways of thinking and playing within those systems.

There are many people who champion new systems and disparage the AD&D system as quite awful and practically insist you play THEIR favorite system, and when they do such that's fine with me for often I find they haven't really understood AD&D or its systems or have made one erroneous assumption upon another and got the wrong idea. To them I can only point out other possible ways of looking at it and show them how the system can and does work. I also frequently find they like a particular new system not because of innate superiority over AD&D, but simply because if supports a particular style of play they prefer as a personal choice (for example, if they love hack and slash and nitty-gritty detail in combat that takes hours even for trivial encounters, they might love a system geared up for realism in combat, but that wouldn't make it better for those who didn't like that).

There are also many people out there who, instead, for reasons only known to themselves, if at all, disparage not the game of AD&D itself, but certain ways of playing as inherently inferior or worse, the players of AD&D themselves as lame, immature, unintelligent, childish, or some such other derogatory designation. To them I can only say they are fools and idiots for holding such an opinion on anything. Everybody has different needs, and only if your own needs were to make other people feel badly would one need to go out of their way to say such a thing. Even I, though I do not think highly of particular playing styles like Hack and Slash, Monty Haulism, Munchkinism, Mini Maxing, etc. do not claim they are wrong, and anyone who wishes to play that way is fine with me. We just won't often be playing together as we have different ideas of what is fun, but it doesn't make them wrong or me right, it just makes us different.

However, if it does come to pass that 3rd edition doesn't have any real advantages, and what's more, a lot of odd things in it that make little sense to a roleplayer, then even I can't defend it as a roleplaying choice, and won't. I hope this doesn't mean you won't look at it and make up your own mind, for it will ultimately be those such people who may yet convince me 3rd edition D&D is worth something and does have something of value to offer. I'll await your letters on that matter.

In the meantime, the only bright thing about all this is that my fear that my website would become obsolete or need a major overhaul as I married it to 3rd edition seems unfounded, and 2nd edition will maintain its standing as a stand alone game with many supplements and materials that fit into it. Despite its problems and/or short comings, 2nd edition AD&D is still a great game, and roleplaying is roleplaying, no matter what roleplaying game system you use to support it.

Happy roleplaying, all.

Here ends the latest commentary. Below, please find previous commentary with all its inaccuracies, bad guesses, and misperceptions intact.

July 2000, CURRENT COMMENTARY ON 3RD EDITION D&D

THE NEW, IMPROVED EXPERIENCE TABLE

The new experience table applies to ALL classes and is thought to be a non linear system where the xp needed for the next level is equal to the sum of the xp needed for the last two levels. Here is a table I think will work, but mistakes may have been made or I may still be making an erroneous assumption, so don't rely too heavily upon it.

Level Experience Points

00th 0000000,000 xp
01st 0000001,000 xp
02nd 0000002,000 xp
03rd 0000003,000 xp
04th 0000005,000 xp
05th 0000008,000 xp
06th 0000013,000 xp
07th 0000021,000 xp
08th 0000034,000 xp
09th 0000055,000 xp
10th 0000089,000 xp
11th 0000144,000 xp
12th 0000233,000 xp
13th 0000377,000 xp
14th 0000610,000 xp
15th 0000987,000 xp
16th 0001,597,000 xp
17th 0002,584,000 xp
18th 0004,181,000 xp
19th 0006,765,000 xp
20th 0010,946,000 xp
21th 0017,711,000 xp
22th 0028,657,000 xp
23th 0046,368,000 xp
24th 0075,025,000 xp
25th 0121,393,000 xp
26th 0196,418,000 xp
27th 0317,811,000 xp
28th 0514,229,000 xp
29th 0832,040,000 xp
30th 1,346,269,000 xp

ADJUSTING OLD MULTICLASS AND DUAL CLASS LEVELS TO NEW ONES

Adjusting old levels of multi class and dual class characters is done thus: Let N = the level of your highest class. Divide each lower level by 3 and round down (keep only the integer, but if rounding down=0, let it equal 1 instead). Add each of these to N. Your character's new level is this sum. For example, if your were a 8th level fighter, 9th level wizard, 9th level thief, your highest level would have been 9. N=9. The other classes are 9/3 = 3 and 8/3 = 2.67 rounded down to 2. 9+3+2=14. You should convert the old character to a new 14th level character. How they arrive at this conversion method is neither stated nor important. The 14 levels may be distributed any way you wish and should reflect, more or less, your character concept, so in this example perhaps 5th level mage, 5th level rogue, 4th level fighter or maybe even 9th level mage, 3rd level rogue, 2nd level fighter, or even a 12th level mage, 1st level rogue, 1st level fighter, etc. Just make sure the levels add up to 14.

Personally, I do not know why they do not let you add up your total xp, use the new table, and calculate your new levels that way. In this example, unless one had rock bottom xp for each class, it will still make one about a 14th level character. With their method, one could take a brand new 2nd ed. character at 1/1/1/1 and start with a 4th level character (serious round off error), but using just the xp method, one would have a beginning 1st level character. Oh well, that's TSR for you.

The classes are NOT tied together as suggested earlier (thank the gods). One need not use NEW xp to go up in a particular class if they choose not to, or they may if they so desire. One only keeps track of ONE xp number now, that being one's total experience points, and compares this to the new xp table. You do NOT keep track of fighter xp, mage xp, rogue xp, etc. Each time they get enough xp to go up another level using the new xp table, they may add one level to the class of their choice (or add a new class at 1st level). Since one must pay dearly for each new class in xp and the TIME to get it, this will cut back on people trying to be everything all at once. For example, to be 1st level in each class of Warrior, Mage, Cleric, and Rogue, you have to have the xp of a 4th level character. This means no beginning character could start out as 1/1/1/1 or something like that and have ALL those skills to start. ALL characters may only start in one class. When they get 1000 xp, they may become 2nd level in that class or add a new class (they would be 1/1 then, but this is still a 2nd level character). You roll a new hit dice for your new class so you will have a number of hit dice equal to your total level (up to 20 hit dice now, no matter what classes they come from), though they need not be the same dice. For example, a 4/3/1 warrior/mage/rogue would have 4d10+3d4+1d6 and be an 8th level character.

So, if one wanted to be fairly good at a lot of things but really good in one class, they could start in that class, take another class at 2nd level, a 3rd class at 3rd level, a 4th class at 4th level, and then forever use level gains from their xp just to increase in their primary class. For example, if I wanted to mostly be a mage with fighter skills, rogue skills, and clerical skills, I'd start as a 1st level mage. At 2000 xp I'd become 1/1 mage/fighter. At 3000 xp, I'd be 1/1/1 mage/fighter/cleric, and at 5000 xp I'd be 1/1/1/1 mage/fighter/cleric/rogue. (Wow). Unlike before, however, I have to get 5000 xp to do this and cannot start out at 1/1/1/1, so this prevents powerful beginning characters in short games hogging all the glory. Now, continuing, at 8000 xp I'd be 2/1/1/1 and at 13,000 xp 3/1/1/1 and at 21,000 xp 4/1/1/1 and at 34,000 xp 5/1/1/1, etc. I could have been just a 9th level mage by now if I went that way, but I wanted more diversity. As always, I CAN add a level in another class or even add a new class when I get enough xp to go up a level, but each such addition really eats up the xp and the time to get it as the new table's xp requirements get really big, really fast. Thus, this system will prevent a lot of abuse. Furthermore, as the classes are not artificially restricted or tied together (by saying they must be equal in level or never more than one level apart, etc.) this system will work and is more realistic than previously thought by me (assuming I have it right now).

It still has some problems, however. For example, a 12th level mage wishes to learn how be be a 1st level rogue. He needs (377,000-233,000 = 144,000) 144,000 xp to learn how to be a 1st level rogue. Before, the same skills could have been learned for 1000 xp. Why the huge difference? I guess it must be assumed that the actual class skills are only a tiny part of it, and the general adventurer stuff is the bulk of that xp. For example, he will get his 13th hit dice and that should be a lot harder to learn than one's 1st hit dice. Still, as long as the levels are not artificially tied together, it is better and more realistic than previous editions and the system may work very well.

Any race can multiclass now (dual class is no more, it is all called multiclass when a character has more than one class). There may be xp bonuses or penalties for certain combinations of classes, races, and the like (the conversion manual does not really help a great deal as it repeatedly refers to the PH (New PH = old PHB, or player's hand book is now PH I guess as Handbook was considered one word or something). Thus, this CONVERSION MANUAL is mostly to help you after you buy the new books (PH and DMG at least), but it is still useful for an advanced look (though misconceptions are bound to occur here and there).

There are no longer RACIAL LEVEL LIMITS. However, be warned. This is due to the new xp table's non-linear nature and that table will limit you a great deal even if you just take one class. For example, I calculate the time to acquire enough xp to become 25th or 26th level should be longer than your average human even lives, and an elf, even though they live a great deal longer, will not live to see 29th level as this will take over 1400 years. Also, the more classes you take, the more severely limited you will be in levels as each new class takes a large chunk of xp. Even if you take them early on, your subsequent classes will need more xp as you'll already be higher in the xp table, so it all limits itself rather nicely and prevents the over powered nature TSR didn't like about super multi class or dual class characters coming into existence with full blown powers. This WILL greatly change the game's power profile, but it seems more sensible, more realistic, and more equitable than before.

INCREASING ONE'S STATISTICS OR ABILITY SCORES

For each 4 levels attained, you may add 1 point to one of your character's stats (for example, go from a 17 INT to an 18 INT, or a 10 WIS to an 11 WIS, etc.). Personally, I'd make higher stats cost more and lower stats cost less and may even devise house rules to do this. For example, raise below average stats (10 or less) by 3 points, mid range stats (11 to 14) by 2 points, and higher stats (15+) by 1 for each 4 levels. This would be far better.

Modifying stats should not be so linear as they are based on a non-linear system (3d6) and the higher you go, the more it should cost. Even more realistic systems are easily devised if you'd rather have one. Here is one I made in less than 10 minutes:

01 will cost 0000 mod points
02 will cost 0005 mod points
03 will cost 0010 mod points
04 will cost 0015 mod points
05 will cost 0025 mod points
06 will cost 0035 mod points
07 will cost 0045 mod points
08 will cost 0060 mod points
09 will cost 0075 mod points
10 will cost 0095 mod points
11 will cost 0115 mod points
12 will cost 0135 mod points
13 will cost 0160 mod points
14 will cost 0185 mod points
15 will cost 0210 mod points
16 will cost 0240 mod points
17 will cost 0270 mod points
18 will cost 0300 mod points
19 will cost 0340 mod points
20 will cost 0380 mod points
21 will cost 0430 mod points
22 will cost 0480 mod points
23 will cost 0540 mod points
24 will cost 0600 mod points
25 will cost 0670 mod points
26 will cost 0740 mod points
27 will cost 0820 mod points
28 will cost 0900 mod points
29 will cost 1000 mod points
30 will cost 2000 mod points

With each gain of one level, a character gets 10 mod points. Find what it would cost for their current statistic and what it would cost for the next higher statistic. Subtract the smaller from the larger. If one has enough mod points, they may increase that stat. Any remainder may be saved for later. If one does not have enough mod points to raise the desired stat, the mod points may be saved for later.

For example, a character goes from 5th level rogue to 6th level rogue. He gains 10 mod points. He wishes to increase his intelligence. It is currently 11. That would have cost 115 mod points. A 12 INT would cost 135 mod points. The difference is 135-115=20. The rogue does not have enough mod points yet, so he saves them. When he achieves 7th level he receives another 10 mod points (and now has a total of 20 mod points). This is what he needs to go up one point in INT, so he does.

This system would have several advantages. First, one may employ it in a more continual manner. This is more realistic than large indiscrete, quantum jumps. Second, one may immediately employ it for raising lower level stats right away. Third, it boils down to about the same thing as before, only now you get 10 points/level rather than 40 points/4 levels.

One more example. Biff, a gullible warrior, has an INT of 7. He wishes to learn how to be less gullible (more INT) and since (60-45=15), he may do this at 3rd level (+10 at 2nd, +10 at 3rd), and he will have 5 mod points left over for next time. So his INT is now 8. At 4th level he gets +10 more mod points and has 15. (75-60=15) and he can go from 8 to 9 INT right away, so he does.

A limited wish may grant one 10 mod points, a full powered wish may grant one 50 mod points. Is this a good system? I suspect it's better than what 3rd ed. is suggesting, but it hasn't been play tested. Only trouble really comes from the fact that more realism often requires another table. The simpler suggestion of raise below average stats (10 or less) by 3 points, mid range stats (11 to 14) by 2 points, and higher stats (15+) by 1 for each 4 levels would be far better as it is realistic and easily memorized and needs no table.

EXCEPTIONAL STRENGTH

This has been eliminated in favor of the same scale for all stats. There is a conversion table:

Exceptional STR Score is now New Strength Score
18/01-18/50 is now 19
18/51-18/75 is now 20
18/76 -18/90 is now 21
18/91-18/99 is now 22
18/00 is now 23
19-20 is now 24
21-22 is now 25
22-23 is now 26
24-25 is now 27

CONSTITUTION BONUSES

I think all classes get the same bonuses for hit points to their hit dice (fighters do not get to add +3 or +4 while other classes only add +1 or +2). I'm not sure if all classes get +1 or +2 or what. I assume they will use the same table for all statistics to keep it simple. (See Below)

DEXTERITY BONUSES

As before, you will have a dexterity reaction adjustment (bonus/penalty). Unlike before, it seems heavy armor might detract from this bonus. Thus, if you were wearing plate mail, for example, your are slower and less maneuverable and will NOT get full bonuses to missile weapons. Also, it will effect your speed (movement rate is now speed). This is easy, realistic, and a good change, I think. No longer will armor only help but some of the disadvantages to wearing it will also come about.

STATISTIC SCORES

Here is a guess. It is ONLY a guess. It is how I might do it if I made a table using this idea. You should not rely on this and wait for the real table in the new system.

STAT SCORE BONUS/PENALTY

0 is at -5 penalty
1 is at -4 penalty
2-3 is at -4 penalty
4-5 is at -3 penalty
6-7 is at -2 penalty
8-9 is at -1 penalty
10-11 is at 0 no penalty or bonus
12-13 is at +1 bonus
14-15 is at +2 bonus
16-17 is at +3 bonus
18-19 is at +4 bonus
20-24 is at +5 bonus
24+ is at +6 bonus or whatever for ridiculously high stats for god-like characters.

Thus, CON bonus/penalty to hit points for hit dice might be just the bonus/penalty listed here and equal for all classes. If a task required CON, you would roll 1d20+bonus/penalty and try to meet or beat the DC (difficulty class) of the task, etc. Similarly, FORTITUDE saving throws would have this bonus/penalty.

RACIAL LIMITS AND ABILITIES

There are no longer racial limits on scores (or gender limits); there are no longer minimum requirements for classes. There are no longer racial limits and what classes one may be. I assume each statistic or ability score will have an associated bonus (for above average, high, to very high scores) and an associated penalty (for below average, low, to very low scores). It is just up to one to decide if you can make a decent fighter (for example) if you have a low STR, but the choice is yours. There will also probably be penalties and bonuses for race/class combinations, but you may decide if a penalty is too severe as there is no rule that will prevent you from taking it.

Each score will similarly use these bonuses or penalties for one's ability checks (non-weapon proficiencies are now SKILL rolls). You now roll 1d20+your modifier (from the appropriate statistic) and try to equal or beat the DC (difficulty class) of the task at hand.

Racial abilities have been adjusted. Infravision, for example, is now dark vision and/or low-light vision (two skills) and other things have been adjusted.

ARMOR CLASS AND THAC0

Armor Class and THAC0 have changed and use a new system. Essentially, the old AC got better as it got lower, but now this is reversed. NEW AC = 20 - OLD AC. For example, the old AC of 4 would be 20-4=16, a new AC of 16. Old AC of 10 is now 20-10=10 a new AC of 10. THAC0 is now converted to an attack bonus. 20-THAC0 = new attack bonus. If your THAC0 was 16, you are now instead 20-16=4, +4 to hit. You roll 1d20 to attack, add your attack bonus, and try to get equal to or higher than your opponent's AC.

A character's SIZE will affect the attack bonus. Smaller creatures will probably have a harder time hitting and hurting and larger ones an easier time hitting and hurting. Size will also affect Armor class (I assume it is harder to hit a smaller object and easier to hit a larger target).

SHIELDS

These still help, but no longer simply add one to one's AC (they do not go into details but suggest a table will be provided in the PH).

SAVING THROWS

Saving throws are in three broad categories now: Fortitude (derived from Constitution), Reflex (derived from Dexterity), and Will (derived from Wisdom).

Anything that simplifies the system and eliminates numerous tables is probably a blessing. One now has bonuses (or penalties) to saving throws based on high or low statistic scores. Each difficulty (a spell, a fall, etc.) that the DM decides your character must overcome is assigned a DC (difficulty class) and you need to roll equal to or higher than that number using 1d20+modifier.

Difficulty Class is calculated or assigned. For a spell, it is 10+level of spell+caster's modifier. Thus, a fireball might be 10+3(3rd level spell)+2(good INT score bonus) = 15 and you'd need to get 15 or higher to make save with 1d20+your modifier.

Bonus spells are given to all spell casters based on their primary requisite. (Wisdom for Clerics, Intelligence for Mages, Charisma for Bards, etc.). Use the old wisdom spell bonus table but use the appropriate stat score.

Old saving throws may be converted to new ones. 15-Old Save = New Save Bonus. For example, an old save of 11 is now a (15-11=4) +4 bonus to that save. And old save of 18 is now (15-18=-3) -3 penalty.

SKILLS and FEATS

Non weapon proficiencies are now skills and generally available to all classes (even rogue skills). However, like before, each skill may be associated with a class and members of that class pay 1 skill point while non-members may pay two skill points. Each point paid increases your bonus by +1 for your 1d20 roll.

Some NWPs are no longer skills (those that said NA for rolls, like blind fighting). These are now FEATS and may be taken by a class or a race. Each will be limited in how many feats they may acquire. Most get one feat to start plus one feat for every three levels attained. Fighters get more combat feats, humans seem to have a bonus (ostensibly to make up for the fact that other races have racial advantages, but I dislike this as it is not explained well in character terms). For example, your human character can hardly say, "God gave me blind fighting to make up for the fact you were born with infravision, may elven friend." This may be ok for game balance, but some in character, in game reason or justification should be given and I haven't seen one yet. Humans also get, for example, a +10% bonus to all xp. Why? Are they smarter than non-humans are? Hopefully this will be fixed or explained in character terms such that the character doesn't feel like he's getting a gift from the gods because he a nothing but a game piece in some cosmic game and balance had to be achieved.

WEAPON PROFICIENCIES

These are automatically acquired within one's class and no longer taken. I think this means there is a standard list of weapons each class member is assumed to have. You can get more or get those outside your class by taking them as feats or paying for them in some other way.

I gather weapons no longer have S/M and L damage ratings but only one base damage that may be modified by various factors.

COMBAT ROUNDS

Rounds are shortened to six seconds long. This is more realistic.

Wizards now have a counter spelling ability. It is a way to keep an enemy spell caster from blowing away your friends (and maybe you). If you decide to attempt a counter spell, you can watch a foe and try to determine what spell he or she is casting (using your Spellcraft skill). If you successfully identify the spell and you happen to have that spell prepared, you can use the prepared spell to counter "completely negate" the opponent's spell.

This sounds lame to me for time considerations. By the time you recognize the spell, your opponent has already cast it. Even if rounds were still a minute long, I think you'd be hard pressed to stop a spell in this manner. With rounds now only 6 seconds, one can hardly claim (even if they can name that spell in one note) they'll be quick enough to stop it. I think it would be better, for example, the let a mage cast the anti field of a spell they have in their head. Thus, if he had a fireball for example, he could cast the antithesis of fireball in an area and make the casting of fireball impossible there for perhaps one round/his level. That way, if he's really concerned about a particular spell, he can put the kibosh on it. Otherwise, he'd just not have the time, IMHO. Reaction times alone could take longer than 6 seconds, and ostensibly spells are much shorter than that (less than a round to cast them).

I do gladly welcome the shortened rounds, however. I have used them for years already and they do make some of the unrealistic shortcomings of AD&D combat more palatable, so this is a good change.

EXTRA ATTACKS, AND SPECIALIZATION

There is no longer specialization as a general rule. It may be replaced with FEATS in some manner. When one acquires +6 to an attack they may begin to take a second attack, but subsequent attacks are at +5 less than the primary. +6 for the first, +1 for the second. I think if you got to +11 they would be +11, +6, and +1 for three attacks or something like that. There are new rules for multiple weapons but they didn't say what yet.

ROGUE SKILLS

These are mostly the same but have some alterations. They are skills now and are probably acquired - though all classes may get them, but the rogue will pay less or get some of them for free. They have a general skill to use magic items in general (whereas before they had a skill to perhaps read scrolls, this now works and most magic items). They have a sneak attack skill rather than a surprise back stab.

SPELLS

Bards have their own list of spells now (I think druids have their own list too). Mage spells are called ARCANE spells while cleric spells (priests are now called clerics again) are called DIVINE spells. There are 0th level spells (cantrips for mages and orisons for clerics).

Spells are in one school and are no longer sometimes shared by multiple schools. Cleric spells also have 8th and 9th level spells now just as mages do. Getting hit while casting a spell will not automatically screw it up. You will have a chance to maintain concentration (a skill roll or a task with a DC assigned to it).

A mage need not take all their spells at once but may reserve some slots for later, perhaps taking time to prepare them AFTER they see what they need. Each "slot" can be filled once/day, I gather, but need not be filled until you know what you wish or need. It may still take time to fill it, but you need not rest before you can do this IF you left some slots in reserve. I'm guessing if you leave slots in reserve you will not have them handy for unexpected combat, but you may be able to prepare them in short order if you are expecting combat soon or need a spell for a particular problem.

The KNOW ALIGNMENTspell has been removed from the game (about 20 years too late, but I can't expect TSR to keep up with a great DM like me;-)

OTHER CHANGES

There are numerous other little changes here and there, but these were minor compared to some of the major points addressed in the Conversion Manual. Until the game comes out in another month or two, even some of this is speculative, so it's rather pointless to doggedly pursue the more minor details until the system is really here.

As before, I have some concerns, but I am happy to report a lot of my earlier misgivings was based on faulty information, and with each passing day (or acquired new bit of information) I like the 3rd ed. system more and more. I have decided to buy the 3rd ed. PH (ick, I'll hate not calling it the PHB), and maybe I'll even buy the DMG, though I'm sure I'll just incorporate the good stuff into the 2nd edition games at first. Perhaps one day, I'll make a firmer transition (assuming a nigh 40 year old player continues to play the game at all in light of more pressing concerns).

As always, have fun.

EARLIER COMMENTARY

What lay below is an earlier commentary; much of it based on faulty information. I preserve it here, however, since some information is still contained down there that I did not duplicate in the above commentary. If you read it, however, bear in mind some of it is now obviously wrong as it was based on faulty data given to me. You should be able to tell what is obviously contrary to what I've said above. With that said, enjoy.

April 2000, CURRENT COMMENTARY ON 3RD EDITION AD&D

I have just caught my SECOND glimpse of 3rd ed. AD&D. To be sure, it is STILL a spartan view at best, but I thought I'd jump up and offer another two cents worth on what little information I have, though it does continue to grow with each surprising revelation. Below, please find excerpts of one of TSR's WebPages in addition to some later acquired information sent to me via another player (all in plain text), and then my commentary in bold text.

A). Any race can be any class (multi-class and dual-class included) and there are no ability score requirements for the classes. Some awkward multi-class combinations might incur an experience penalty, as well as classes not previously available to a certain race (probably like a +10% xp penalty or so).

I always strive to eliminate artificial rules. These are rules that make a game fine and perhaps balanced, but when they reach into your world's reality in an obtrusive manner, they make little sense or worse, no sense at all. For example, it's fine to say a warrior needs a strength of 9 to learn how to fight well, but why should someone with a strength of 8 not be able to learn at all? Surely, they should be able; they'll just not be as good at it. Properly written with advantages for good statistics and disadvantages for poor one (or advantages for this race, none for that one, and even a penalty for that one), you need not artificially force players not to play this or that but they may naturally come to their own conclusions. A game rule thrusting itself into world reality and making itself felt is hardly ever a good idea. I applaud the elimination of racial restrictions, and I also welcome the lack of statistical limitation (ability scores) on your character's choices for class.

B). You can raise any ability score by one point every four levels.

This is a good idea. Before it was assumed (I think) that your characters pretty much achieved as much physical perfection as they could while training in their class, and by the time they were 1st level they had sort of topped out. It would take magic to alter it further. I like this change but wish they had gone further. For extra realism, one may state that INT and WIS can never be more than X apart (if they start out further than that, fine, you just have to raise the one before you raise the other), but then it gets kind of complicated, and one of the good things about 3rd edition is that they were striving to simplify things, eliminate numerous tables, and streamline their game. So this change is probably fine as it is. If the DM wishes further realism, he can add it himself. Another problem is going from 18 to 19 INT, for example, would cost as much as going from an INT of 3 to and INT of 4. The higher stats should cost more, not the same, or let characters raise below average stats (10 or less) by 3 points, mid range stats (11 to 14) by 2 points, and higher stats (15+) by 1 for each 4 levels. This would be far better.

C). a). All classes have the same experience table, starting with 1,000 xp for 2nd level and 2,000 xp needed for 3rd level. The formula for figuring out how much xp you need for the next level is the sum of the xp needed for your current level and the xp needed for your previous level. b). Also, level limits on demi-humans are eliminated. c). Humans have a +10% xp bonus that demi-humans do not get.

The elimination of demi-human level limits greatly worried me. I felt because of their advantages and longevity, even if humans and demi-humans that started out together would remain comparable, the big picture would hold that the world's demi-human NPCs would greatly outshine their human cohabitants. That is, for example, there would be many, many high level elven mages (arch mages!!!) who would yet live for centuries, while any humans who make such lofty levels would soon die due to old age (even wishes and longevity potions can only take you so far, and if you think about it, even 100 such potions let a human mage live less than an elf lives naturally). For a game, this rule is fine and you can ignore the logical consequences of having EXTREMELY high level demi-human NPCs all over the place. Realistically, however, they'd be so powerful, if they were so inclined they'd be running the world and humans would be subjugated under them. Of course, that thinking assumed the same sort of experience tables as before. They have been changed. In fact, there is now only one xp table for ALL classes.

I built the xp table using their formula to see how it may look and I discovered several interesting things. Bear with me while I outline several assumptions. In the old system, it might take a solid year or two of adventuring to reach name level, but that was all. After that, the xp needed to go up a level was comparable to all the xp previously acquired, so each additional level after name level took about another one or two years. Even assuming it would only take one year, this is how it shaped up. Your character would reach 11th level in a year. Their second year would take them to 12th level. Their third year to 13th, etc. Their 10th year, to 20th level, and because of the linear nature of the xp tables after name levels, to reach Xth level would take X-10 total years (where X >11). This meant that without level limits, because of their longevity, at that rate an elf would reach nearly 1000th level (naturally, they probably wouldn't adventure at that rate or for the entire millennium, but they could). All of this already necessitated some rulings or conventional wisdom to put a lid on things in those rare instances when real life games actually got that high (well above 20th to 30th level). With the new xp table in 3rd edition, this will no longer be necessary.

However, unless they also changed how much xp each magic item or creature is worth by making them all worth less (and they may have to bring things in accordance and balance in the game, not to mention make it almost necessary to buy their new stuff, those little devils), then at the same rate of acquiring xp, it will now take one year to reach 14th level (much quicker progression in the lower levels than before). But the table is not linear, so the years between levels get really big, really fast.

To make it to arch mage (18th level) takes only 6.9 years now (8 years before in 2nd edition under the assumptions I have made). At the end of nearly a dozen total years of adventuring, your character should make 19th level. It will take the next 6 years after that to make 20th level. It will take another 12 years to make 21st level. After nearly 50 solid years of adventuring, one can expect to go from 1st level all the way to 22nd level. At that rate, it will take another 25 years (75 years total since you started, or nearly an entire human life time (remember you start near 15 to 20 years old)), to achieve 23rd level.

For demi-humans, it will take 200 total years to make 25th level. 325 years total will get them to 26th level. Then it will take 523 years total to get to 27th level. 850 to 28th level, and nearly 1400 years of total adventuring to get to 29th level, and elves do not even live that long. Thus, without the racial level limits, even your demi-human NPCs will be no higher than 6 levels above top of line humans (and both have no spells, for example, better than 9th level). However, these NPC high level demihumans will still be in much greater numbers. A human who makes it as high as 23rd level will soon die while the demihuman will still live for centuries, thus having a powerful force in the world for a great deal of time. This will have a tendency to populate the world with high level demihuman NPCs, so even with a human and non human starting together in a race (or in a game as two PCs for example), the human will win the race (make levels faster), but the demihuman will win the war, so to speak, and capture the world. It's easy to ignore the consequences when your games do not last for years or decades, but a DM's world probably does, at least in theory already has, and the high population density of high level NPC demihumans should be a concern. (BTW, it takes over 33 million years to make 50th level now. Pretty neat, eh?).

Of course one could always claim ALL demihumans depart from this realm long before it becomes a problem (and not just elves), but they'd still stick around for half their mortal life span, and that means 25th to 26th level plus elves running around for centuries. Remember, I'm not saying an elf will be significantly more powerful than a human, I'm saying there will be a LOT more of them. Besides, it doesn't jive with other demi human races to have them flee across the waters (or whatever), but elves have the greatest longevity and are the main problem. Still, there is no question in my mind there would be lots of high level elven arch mages (unless you care to make up another artificial reason why they get killed, don't adventure, refuse to get involved with anything a PC might be interested in, or some other excuse to effectively pretend they aren't really there. A good game, in my opinion, keeps gods and deities out of the way and makes sure they never become directly involved, and with this xp table and the elven longevity, you'll have to similarly keep elves out of the way. It seems unlikely to me, but to each his own.

So even though the dire consequences of totally eliminating level limits for demihumans isn't nearly as bad in 3rd edition as it would have been in 2nd edition (now that we have a new xp table), it is still bad; just not as bad as it could have been. The only realistic thing that kept humans and demihumans on par before was that humans could make these lofty levels (such as arch mage or better) while demihumans couldn't ever get high enough to cast a wish, thus balancing the scales. Not to mention the problem of the penalty of casting a wish. For a human, aging 5 years is a major thing, but for a demihuman, it's a cakewalk. (That's why I make casting a wish spell age the caster 5% of their race's typical life span instead of just 5 years, so 5 years for humans, but 50 years for an elf). Too bad for 3rd ed. At least multiclass demihumans will never outshine humans. Let me tell you why in a bit.

D). Multi-classing is different in 3rd Edition. Experience is gained for one class at a time, not for all of them. The multi-class character's level is the sum of all of his class levels combined. Keep this in mind when calculating experience for the next level. (The 1st level fighter/1st level mage character has to gain experience for a 3rd level character for him to increase in level for either class, not both simultaneously). All classes must be AT MOST ONE LEVEL APART. (The 2nd level thief/1st level mage must raise his mage level to 2 before increasing his thief level any higher. A 4th level fighter/3rd level mage/2nd level thief/1st level cleric multi-class character is acceptable"all classes are at most one level apart and this character would be considered a 10th level character in respect to saving throws, experience needed for the next level, and so forth). A multi-class must start out his adventuring career with one class. Upon reaching the next level, he can choose to raise his current class up a level or gain another class. YOU CANNOT GAIN ANOTHER CLASS IF ANY OF YOUR CURRENT CLASSES ARE 3RD LEVEL OR HIGHER. Hit points and experience points are not divided amongst the classes. (The 4th level thief/5th level mage has the hit points worth of 4D6 from the thief and 5D4 from the mage, but will need to get experience needed for a 10th level character to raise that thief class to 5th level). These new multi-class rules are used to balance out the power that was tipped in favor of multi-class characters in 2nd edition.

This may seem confusing at first, but it is easy when you know you only keep track of one thing now, your total xp, compare that to the only xp table, see how many levels your character has, and then distribute them amongst your classes. Mind you, you can't reshuffle them and may only alter each current classes' level upward (never down). There are a lot of good things about this new method. Unfortunately, one real bad thing is an artificial game rule was thrust into "game world" reality, and that always bites (not that 2nd edition was free of this. Far from it, but you should still take note of it when it happens).

They now claim if a demihuman reached 4th level it is too late to learn a new profession. Ridiculous. It just makes their lovely-contrived system of numbers go haywire and difficult to manage. That's too bad they couldn't think of a decent way to simplify it and make it realistic, for it will never make sense to say a person can no longer learn a new skill or profession, especially if he could have before, and by all accounts, is now more experienced, wiser, and more intelligent than before. Perhaps it should be harder, true, but to preclude it is an artificial contrivance and hardly indicative of realism. Also, by doing it such, they make it impossible for a fighter/thief, for example, to give up his thiefly ways, quit learning his roguish skills, and concentrate on being the best fighter he can be. His fighter level is always now tied to his thief level and they must go hand in hand. Mind you, 2nd ed. was no better in this regard, but I wouldn't call this an improvement, and one of the major complaints about AD&D was this problem which they didn't address.

As it is, however, once a demihuman takes a second class they are effectively limiting both of their classes to 12th or 13th level. Since 12 + 13 = 25, it takes the xp of a 25th level character to do this, and that already is older than a human will get and nearly as old as an elf will get. And who the hell is going to play a PC for 200 game years anyway? It will take that long to reach 12/13, for example. If they could leave a class behind and just go up in one class, never returning to it, that would be better. Triple class is even worse. They are limited to about no more than 9th level in each class, and quadruple class characters are limited to no more the 7th level in each class. Remember, these are limitations imposed by the time it takes to get the xp necessary and not by some game rule. Many feel triple or quadruple classes are ridiculous anyway, so I won't cry for them, but the double class limit of about 13th level in each class is a hard mistress.

I have to laugh at the multiclass character now. Coming into this one may think "Great, they got rid of demihuman limits and my cleric/mage will be awesome, never quite realizing now that the level limitations are gone, they are more limited than before. LOL. Oh well, that's TSR for you.

Typically, TSR probably felt the multiclass characters were too powerful and OVER REACTED AGAIN. True, in 2nd edition if a player had a quadruple class character they would shine like a super nova in comparison to the dim single class people, and by virtue of the fact many games might not last long, they'd have it all their own way (thus putting a bad taste in many people's mouths and making them wish to deliver a death blow to that kind of thing). But this 3rd edition fix wasn't the correct solution. I wonder if they'll point out the fact of these realistic level limits on multiclass characters due to time constraints before a player foolishly takes a double or triple class character. If not, they may play a year or two or even longer before it dawns on them they are effectively limited in levels even though there are no actual level limits. Perhaps TSR didn't play test 3rd ed. enough to realize this, or perhaps they did. I don't know. It's sometimes hard to see the results when changing two variables at the same time, and changing the xp table AND how multiclass characters work had this unfortunate consequence.

Besides, it's a stupid system. I mean, think about it. Here you are 2nd level, just getting enough xp to add a level, and instead of going to 3rd level you have to add a class now. And somehow, the necessary knowledge of being a 1st level thief, for example, now takes more xp than it takes to go up to third level. In short, they make it require more xp to learn the same skills that would require less xp if you had learned them earlier. Why? What has changed about the knowledge that makes it harder to understand? Fact is, nothing has. It's just a problem with their system and they way they play with numbers. It may work well in a game, but it strays away a bit from reality. Oh well, no matter. At least they keep the levels close enough together so it doesn't get too ridiculous. For example, if they let you start taking xp for 1st level thief after you were a 13th level mage, then you'd need all the xp to make 14th level just to learn the skills of a 1st level thief. The example helps exaggerate my earlier point, and the only reason it doesn't get that bad is because they put an artificial rule in to fix their other artificial rule. Sigh. Still, nothing's perfect, and this system should work if you stay within their rigid lines and DON'T ASK QUESTIONS! (So what else is new?)

In any event, single class NPC demihumans will still be in a position to rule the world, even if their lesser multiclass brethren are not, or their PC counter parts will never get that high during the actual game.

E.) Wisdom is the ability score used to determine extra xp, not the class's prime requisite. Wisdom of 16 gives you a +10% xp bonus and Wisdom of 18 gives you a +20% xp bonus.

OK, I like this, and it's realistic. Furthermore, it makes priests even nicer to play and I like that too. Personally, I would have made allowance for high INT also doing this, or made the average of INT and WIS do this, but this is more complex and they were trying to make it easier. Good enough, I guess. Though I'd still say a WIS of 17 should get a +15% xp bonus rather than jumping from 10 to 20 in one go.

F.) a.) The proficiency system is replaced with the skill system. Each character class has a certain number of skill points that it gets to spend each level (modified by intelligence). Every class also has a set of class skills, which are the skills that class is best at. Each skill point spent on a class skill results in a +1 bonus to that skill. Skills not in the set of class skills are still available, but progress at a slower, more costly rate. To use a skill, the DM assigns a number that you must meet or beat on a D20. This number is called the Difficulty Value, or DV or DC, difficulty class. If you don't have the appropriate skill for the task at hand, the DV or DC, difficulty class is 16. High relevant ability scores give bonuses to these rolls, while low relevant ability scores penalize these rolls. The ability score bonuses seem to be: 12-13: +1, 14-15: +2, 16-17: +3, 18-19: +4, and so on. The ability score penalties seem to be 7-8: -1, 5-6: -2, 3-4: -3, and so on. b.) For opposed rolls, both contestants must meet or beat the other's DV or DC, difficulty class to succeed. If a tie occurs (in both succeeding and failing, not having the same D20 roll), reroll until only one of them wins. If any (or both) contestant(s) have opposing scores over 20, bring down both of the scores equally until the higher score is 20; then do the opposed roll. (If both scores are over 20 and you want to get the opposed roll over with quickly, lower both scores until the higher score reaches a mid-range number on the D20 (like 10, for example) and do the opposed roll there. Better than waiting to see who gets a 20 or a 19 first). c.) You must meet or beat the DV or DC, difficulty class of a task in order to successfully accomplish your intended action. Difficulty of task: Simple 5, Routine 7, Average 9, Challenging 11, Difficult 13, Strenuous 15, Extreme 17, Nearly Impossible 19, Unskilled -5 penalty. (Note: If the DM feels that a certain task is harder than nearly impossible (or easier than simple), he can give an even higher (or lower) DV or DC, difficulty class to that task).

Well, this is good and bad (what isn't in any system for that matter?). Part a.) deals with skills and I have been doing this for years in my own game, so I like it. Their numbers are probably a bit different, but so what? The bad thing is that AD&D still wishes to use a linear d20 to approximate what is essentially not a linear thing. G.U.R.P.S. uses 3d6 (a bell curve) and that was a better way to go, but you can only change so much at a time. Sigh. I do like the general approach of skills, and I'm glad to see they have done this. Depending on the details, I may have to adopt their new system for a change.

G.) Sneak Attacks (previously called Backstabs) are possible ANYTIME the opponent has his back facing the rogue (or any other character with a backstabbing ability).

I hope this assumes the victim must also be unaware of the attacker, or unable to do anything about it, for if it doesn't, I don't like it. I don't mind that other classes have the possibility to acquire backstabbing, but I hope there is more to it than a simple rear attack. Perhaps they have to both hit the target's AC AND make their sneak attack skill roll. That would be better.

H.) Rogues have an ability called Evasion, which allows them to avoid damage from area spells and effects if they make their saving throws.

Well, this could get to be a problem. It just depends on what it means, and I have no examples. A rogue, for example, should not be able to evade a fireball (my god, 33,000+ ft^3). Even the first edition monk had chi to help do this, and that was more of a resistance than an evasion. Well, we'll see.

I.) Elven special abilities are low-light vision, immunity to sleep spells, and +2 saving throw bonus vs. enchantment spells or effects.

I wonder how this differs from infravision. I know a lot of people tried to compare the near infrared vision of an elf to the fantastic deep infrared vision of a high tech camera or what have you, and the two are not the same (or shouldn't be), but maybe they got tired of trying to explain why. Thus, infravision may be on the way out and this sounds more like a cat's vision than infravision. Keep watch gentle players, and see.

J.) There are 0-level spells. These are spells less powerful than 1st level spells. First level spell casters get a number of 0-level spells right away. These spells let them do fundamental but rather minor things, like detecting, curing one hit point, and creating light.

Sounds fine to me. In fact, I like it as it will make the character's usefulness at low levels higher and more enjoyable to play.

K.) a.) Rounds are shortened to six seconds long. b.) Wizards now have a counter spelling ability. It is a way to keep an enemy spell caster from blowing away your friends (and maybe you). If you decide to attempt a counter spell, you can watch a foe and try to determine what spell he or she is casting (using your Spellcraft skill). If you successfully identify the spell and you happen to have that spell prepared, you can use the prepared spell to counter "completely negate" the opponent's spell.

This sounds lame to me for time considerations. By the time you recognize the spell, your opponent has already cast it. Even if rounds were still a minute long, I think you'd be hard pressed to stop a spell in this manner. With rounds now only 6 seconds, one can hardly claim (even if they can name that spell in one note) they'll be quick enough to stop it. I think it would be better, for example, the let a mage cast the anti field of a spell they have in their head. Thus, if he had a fireball for example, he could cast the antithesis of fireball in an area and make the casting of fireball impossible there for perhaps one round/his level. That way, if he's really concerned about a particular spell, he can put the kibosh on it. Otherwise, he'd just not have the time, IMHO. Reaction times alone could take longer than 6 seconds, and ostensibly spells are much shorter than that (less than a round to cast them).

I do gladly welcome the shortened rounds, however. I have used them for years already, and they do make some of the unrealistic short comings of AD&D combat more palatable, so this is a good change.

L.) a.) There are no longer spells that belong to more than one school. There is a Universal school that contains a few spells that all wizards need. Specialists, however, can decide what their opposition schools are (there are some rules you have to follow, though). b.) Wizards have a collection of Cantrips (0-level spells). Wizards can also use Detect Magic and Read Magic once per day per level each. They can also add little quirks to their magic, such as screeching Magic Missiles or banana peels instead of animal fat for Grease. Wizards might not have her full allotment of spells prepared (wizards used to memorize spells, now they prepare them). Wizards can leave some of their spell potential untapped so they can prepare a spell on the fly if they need to.

OK, this makes specialist wizards more attractive to play and mages more fun to play. I'm all for that and see no problems on the horizon because of it. I also approve of the mages being able to cast more little things. I especially like not having to memorize all your spells, leaving some blanks open. Alas, the blank mana system I now use still surpasses this, and I see no reason to step back. Their 3rd ed. method, however, is better than the standard one found in 2nd ed. If you wish to read about my system, follow the link below.

Mana System, A Different Way To Cast Spells (A Good Alternative System To The Standard Memorization Of Spells. Add Diversity To Your Spell Casters)

M.) Clerics and Wizards can make magical Potions, Scrolls, (and I think items) at any level. They lose as much xp as the value of the magical item. Levels CANNOT be lost in this manner; xp can only be reduced to the point of the least amount of xp for their current level. They cannot make a magical item if its value is worth more than the xp they can afford to lose.

This seems lame as well. If anything, making an item should probably increase their experience. If you want to make them pay with something, use some other quantity. Life energy in the form of unnatural aging comes to mind. Stat points could be used as well. Hit points (temporarily or permanently lost) may perhaps be sacrificed. The suggestion you forget knowledge by doing something like this seems off, so unless we have to rethink what xp really is, I think they have missed the boat here. But then, what can you expect from an abstract thing? Do you know, for example, that if you just go up a level you temporarily forget how to make a potion? I mean, you can't make it at all until you get enough xp to pay for it. How stupid is that? You should at least be able to go into xp debt such that, though you do not lose a level, you can pay with your xp and take you down to at least the next lower level (even if you don't actually lose a level), and then repay the DM (or the world) with you new incoming xp before you continue. Alas, rules can be so lame when artificial or contrived for game reasons with no basis in game world reality. There were already numerous problems with certain undead draining energy levels from you, and this xp loss for the manufacture of magic items must be along those lines. TSR took an ax to the mage class going from 1st ed. to 2nd ed. and it seems they are not done. Too bad. I guess it's just their way to curtail the advance of spell casters now that everybody uses the same xp table. One good thing, I predict, is that you can start at any level now and not have to wait until 7th level (1st ed.) or 9th level (2nd ed.) to make magic items.

N.) a.) Multiple attacks are a function of Level and Skills. Every class eventually gets multiple attacks, not just fighters. Also, there are no more fractional attacks (example: 3 attacks per 2 rounds). b.) Dexterity can affect initiative rolls. c.) No more Weapon Speed Factors.

I'm glad of that, for I hated the fractional attack thing. This sounds like a simplification and improvement. Hurrah.

O.) All classes can wear armor, but it may restrict their abilities (such as preventing wizards from casting spells). Wearing heavy armor penalizes your dexterity or your attack roll (not sure yet). This new scale eliminates THAC0, replacing it with an Attack Roll Bonus, which you use to increase the result of an attack roll. Attack Roll Bonus increases for each class exactly as THAC0 would in AD&D 2nd Edition. Recalculate Armor Class so that the value goes up instead of down; your new AC equals 20 minus your old AC, so 10 = 10 but -5 is now 25. Invert all adjustments to AC. Dexterity adjustments become pluses, not minuses, for example. Do the same with THAC0, which is replaced by a bonus to hit. Your bonus to hit equals 20 minus your THAC0, so if your THAC0 was 14, you now get +6 to hit instead. When you roll to hit, roll d20 and add your bonus. You hit if your score at least your target's AC. The first couple of times you do this, you might feel kind of silly. However, in short order you'll probably be able to do the conversion on the fly without a second thought.

It's been a long time coming, I suppose. This was bound to happen since many are confused about whether they need to roll high or low, and since it depends on what you are rolling, it is hard to learn. Perhaps rolling high will always be good now. This change does not bother me. I'd even like it if I didn't have to convert everything. I like letting mages wear armor if they wish (I even let them wear leather or lighter and cast spells if they accept the fact their spells will be one segment slower or come at the end of the round).

P.) There are only three saving throws in 3rd Edition: Reflex (any outside attack requiring a saving throw, such as a Fireball), Will (any attacks that affect the mind requiring a saving throw, such as Charm Person), and Fortitude (any attacks that affect the body requiring a saving throw, such as poison). High ability scores may give bonuses to these saving throws.

This concerns me a bit since they continue to look at a saving throw against a fireball as a reflex. Considering its volume, little can be done by way of reflex to prevent from being enveloped. Furthermore, why are mages able to withstand them (save vs. spells) better than a warrior if it's purely a reflex consideration? If anything, I'd think a warrior would have better reflex training and better saves vs. such things if it were just a matter of reflexes. I love the simplification down to three save types, but their example of a fireball annoys me. Still, I don't know for a fact that mages still have better saves vs. "spells" anymore, so maybe it'll work out.

Q.) Monks, Assassins, Barbarians, & what not. Monks and assassins both appear in the 3rd edition of D&D. For now, use the rules presented in the recent Greyhawk supplement The Scarlet Brotherhoodfor monk characters. Assassins will be a special prestige class, and they may not be of good alignment.

Well, alignment restrictions tend to rub me the wrong way (another artificial game rule where it shouldn't belong). After all, it could be argued that James Bond is an assassin, and he doesn't strike me as evil. A license to kill issued by one's government is one of the few ways I can think of getting a "good" assassin, but it should be possible. As for assassins in general, they're ok, and I'm happy the monk is coming back, though what form it will take is still a mystery. Barbarians, on the other hand, didn't impress me as they were written before, but I'd have to see them again.

R.) Character Creation. When rolling up stats for new characters, have each player roll 4d6 and keep the best three dice. Repeat the process six times. When complete, players can assign the final six total to the six ability scores as they see fit.

Actually, when I bother to have someone roll a character, this is pretty much how I do it, except I let them roll 3 such characters and take the best of these three. I do not mind being given a more standard method rather than having half a dozen to choose from.

S.) No more exceptional strength. 2nd Edition, (3rd Edition). 18/01-50, (19). 18/51-75, (20). 18/76-90, (21 Vampire Strength). 18/91-99, (22). 18/00, (23 Ogre Strength). 19, (24 Hill Giant Strength). 20, (25 Stone Giant Strength). 21, (26 Frost Giant Strength). 22, (27 Fire Giant Strength). 23, (28 Cloud Giant Strength). 24, (29 Storm Giant Strength). 25, (30 Titan Strength).

This is good as many think ES to be unrealistic or too powerful, and the added differences in a dissimilar scale of strength in the 18 to 19 range never did look good or realistic to me. Frankly, ES has caused me more problems than most things. It seems at least one stat now goes to 30, and probably the others may do this as well. I may have to rethink statistical limits. I currently let no PC have a permanent stat beyond 20, and an old STR score of 20 translates to a new score of 25. I suppose a stat (INT for example) of 19 would be 24, and 20 would now be 25 as well. New human limits (for my world) may now have to be 25. The effect of limited wishes and wishes on stats will have to be recalculated. I'm not overly concerned about the natural ability to raise one's stats every four levels. This will be limited to no more than 4 or 5 times anyway considering the xp table. Thus, one might go from 18 to 23 in the fullness of time without using magic. Well, I'll have to wait and see like the rest of you how much this will change things.

T.) Initiative is cyclical. (you go first, what do you do? You go next, what to you do? Not declare actions, roll initiative, and get a good plan gone badly). It's more reactive. In the first round and only the first, roll initiative and adjust it by dexterity scores. The roll you get will dictate when you go in a round. You can alter your initiative turn (after the first round) either so that you can go first (called Refocusing) or so that you can go last (called Delaying). If more than one character involved in combat wants to refocus or delay in the same round, the character with the higher dexterity goes first. If both dexterity scores are equal, break the tie with a die roll.

I feel this is needlessly complex AND fails to be realistic anyway. Combat is not like that; too many variables will determine when you can go and in what order each and every round. Just because you got lucky and went first the first round doesn't mean your luck will hold. Nor should you be punished if you started out as unluckily slow by continuing to be slow. Then they seem to have characters deciding to go first or wait based on a game rule. This is something players may do, but characters should not. Realistically, one should roll every round. Furthermore, my method of not rolling initiative at all except in the few instances where the DM sees the actual order will make a difference still seems to be better than what they are suggesting here. It saves time AND adds realism, and when you can do this in a game, I say go for it. Unfortunately, they went a different way.

U.) Spell Bonuses. Allow all spell casting characters to use the bonus spell chart for priests. Wizards use Intelligence (instead of Wisdom) to determine their bonus spells, while bards use Charisma. Paladins and rangers both use Wisdom.

This has been a problem for many and so they went after it with a quick fix. In and of itself, I saw a problem with it, but they augmented the fix with another rule below, so maybe it will not be so bad. In the past, it was assumed clerics (priests) got wisdom bonuses so they could be something other than walking hospitals. With a good wisdom bonus, they could carry more than just healing spells. Thus, they were more than combat medics. The mages didn't get this bonus since they were already more than combat medics, being something other than a natural PARTY resource. This would have been a problem, then, making the priest a less than desirable class to play since others were obviously better, but the rule below gives them the diversity to be something more. Let's hope it pans out well.

V.) Healing Spells. Allow a priest to swap a previously memorized spell for the ability to heal. For each level of the swapped spell, the priest heals d8 points of damage to anyone (including the casting character). Example: A priest PC swaps a 4th-level spell for healing. The priest then heals 4d8 hit points. All the healing must be directed at the same target.

This is the diversity many have sought after in various mana point systems, but it is given only to the priest class to make up for the changes of giving mages INT bonuses (I assume). Thus, instead of being forced to carry nothing but healing spells and being delegated as a mere party resource, they can be more offensive as well when called for. This is a good move. Of course, the regular cure spells are probably gone (they would be less powerful than a 1d8/level cure anyway, and this makes priests even more attractive to play).

W.) Critical Hits. Allow a natural 20 on an attack roll to be a "threat." Have the attacker roll the d20 a second time. If the second roll is successful, the attacker has scored a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all bonuses) twice and add the results together. If the second roll fails, inflict damage normally. (A thief's backstab, however, only doubles the damage on the first damage roll).

I can live with this. It is less realistic and less colorful than some critical hit tables I have seen, but it is easy to understand and employ. It's probably a good move.

X.) The "Hovering over Death's Door" rule is now standard.

Good enough, but I still like negative constitution for death rather than -10. I mean, their new rule implies a CON of 30 has no better chance of surviving than a CON of 3. Since both fall unconscious at 0 HPs, consideration of positive hit points is already past, so I think it only natural to assume a better, heartier constitution has a tighter grip on life. Well, to each his own. Before, a maximum of -18 didn't bother me, but -30 is a lot of extra hit points before one dies. Still, if you go down without nearby help, you'll die anyway. Thankfully most PCs will never have a CON of 30 anyway.

Y.) Each spell (and spell-like effect) in the game contains a description of how it is affected by magic resistance. This should remove substantially all the confusion over how to adjudicate the effects of Magic Resistance. Also, the higher the level of the spell caster, the easier it will be for that caster to affect creature with magic resistance!

This is the theory, but if done poorly, they may end up twisting some DM's vision by various rulings. It will take time to adjust, but until then, we wait to see what will happen.

Rats. I didn't quite make it through the alphabet. Zzzzzzzzzz, oh, maybe I did :^)

VARIOUS REACTIONS

Third Reaction: It now seems enough of the exponential nature of the xp tables have been trashed such that the logical consequences of demi human NPCs will become a problem. Some DMs may contrive reasons why this will not be a problem (even I could probably do it), but I think that's adding mistakes to correct mistakes. Unless new information comes to light, I do not think third edition is going to grace my shelves anytime soon.

© July of 2000
by
James L.R. Beach
Waterville, MN 56096