Why 2nd ed is better than 3.5

[Thelandrin]

(Silly chronological order! This is Irdeggman's thread, but these two posts were written earlier!)

Ah yes. 2nd Edition - no-one could play it without a book of house rules and home corrections as thick as the PHB :)

[MatanThunder]

:cool:


Ah yes. 2nd Edition - no-one could play it without a book of house rules and home corrections as thick as the PHB

Ahhhh....sweet addendums of precious thought that enhanced the game for many.

It was a new era without the same ideas being resold over, and over, and over, and over, and over,.......again.

The ideas enhanced the game, and they only got as thick as a PHB if your DM was anygood.

Later

:rolleyes:

[irdeggman]

Even though this subject really, really does not belong in discussion over BR itself there appears to be a constant flow of statements on this line.

So here is now a thread to keep them in.

There is actually no reason to constantly (well it appears that way) resort to this (or the reverse - that 3.5 is better than 2nd ed) statements as a part of the discussion on "how to accoplish" something.

In almost every single case 2 methods can be (and should be if the question is generic and not specific to a mechanic specific to one edition or the other) two answers. One for 2nd ed mechanics and one for 3.5 mechanics. There could even be other answers for those who use non D&D systems to play the game (and there are several who have posted such).


To start it off:

My take on the evolution of D&D (all opinion mind you)

Through the years D&D has followed a progression of decreasing flavor/color and increasing detail/mechanics.

What I mean is that OD&D was pretty much almost all color/flavor with real simple game mechanics.

1st started to insert more detailed mechanics with a slight reduction in the color/flavor

2nd ed inserted more mechanics (and more options as it progressed, the proficiency system quantum jump {which came with one of the "survivor's guide, I just can't remember which one - but it was only lightly handled in the PHB when that first came out} but really only had at most a slight drop in color/flavor

3.0 ed inserted a huge amount of mechanics and made the game very, very generic. The amount of color/flavor in the core rules was drastically reduced to match the increase in detail of the mechanic's side.

3.5 increased the detail of the game mechanics (most notably things like DR and bonus types were greatly codified). While the color/flavor also went down somewhat.

This evolution, IMO, corresponds to the increase in the reliability of PC (and platform) gaming as the reference to the group being "targeted". People read less and watch movies more and the like.

I have also noticed an increase in the "genericization" of the settings. That is to say that the "settings" have an decreasing amount of "uniqueness" and an increasing amount of "anything in a WotC book can be used in this setting". Look at what Dragon/Dungeon did with their version of updating Dark Sun to 3.5. {I mean paladins in Dark Sun? Come on now that is a huge stretch for a world that is supposed to be more shades of grey than black and white as far as good and evil goes.}

Well those are my opinions. I think we should start to move any post that is simply a "one edition is better" type of post here to clear out the actual discussion topics.

[Gwrthefyr]

Gods and the planes in Darksun... blech! (I've once seen DS 3ed/3.5 described as Forgotten Realms in a desert ;) )

I've still got plenty of booklets for campaign notes and house rules (a lot of the stuff I house ruled in 2e is also in 3e and 3.5), so it's not so much superiority as it is a bit of nostalgia since the rules and the settings are still going through a hack job to fit my needs. I liked a set of web rules for proficiencies because I had a certain appreciation for the Fuzion-ish systems and their skill emphasis. I will might enjoy the Green Ronin stuff.

Except for the historical accessories, but maybe a conversion would be possible: the Great War add-on to MotRD didn't look too bad rules-wise (setting-wise, I like my worlds without eternal overarching conspiracies that actually have the power to influence Great Powers).

So, conclusion - a base set of mechanics and rules is certainly important, but the authors have to be aware that the DMs will house rule, and some DMs might even switch emphasis (level/skill/freeform xp, magic/technology/mix, etc); they certainly do it themselves, after all :D . Maybe some introduction of alternate systems could be done more easily with the wiki?

As for flavour and genericity - not trying to tie in everything to everything else would be a nice start. It was tried at first in 2ed, with Planescape and Spelljammer (maybe Ravenloft to a degree, but it was generally assumed that the only form of crossover was to Ravenloft, not out of it), but it generally felt tacked on and both settings looked better standing alone in most cases (opinion, but I'm surely not alone). There's also a problem when the flavour and the mechanics don't really fit (the maritime Rjuven whose lowest level provinces are mainly on the coast?). The generic campaign is not where I expect the leat genericity anyway*.

And no matter the edition, equipment weight should no be based off the 1st ed tables, not anymore ever.

*And I seem to have read your point backwards ;)

[kgauck]

I have also noticed an increase in the "genericization" of the settings. That is to say that the "settings" have an decreasing amount of "uniqueness" and an increasing amount of "anything in a WotC book can be used in this setting".

I'd call this the GURPS effect.

[ShadowMoon]

I agree with irdeggman in regard of settings using flavour, and losing specific settings all together, but still D&D 3.5 is utterly superior over previous editions... And mechanic means much, leaving DM to deal with the story, as well as providing him/her needed support to depict alternative realities through game system.

Tho, D&D 3.5 system that I use in my Birthright campaign is heavily modified...

[Elton Robb]

AD&D 2nd Edition is easier to use than D&D 3.x. That's not to mean that they are less complex; both have their strengths and weaknesses over each other. It just depends on how you are going to achieve your fun.

I use Arms Law with AD&D 2nd Edition, just as much as I would use Arms Law with d20. 3.x is more of a character construction kit; you engineer characters you don't tend to let them grow naturally in 3.x. In AD&D, growth is more natural.

In other RPG circles, especially of the HarnMaster kind, our fellow RPGers believe that level systems are the bane of a good time. Whose to say that they are wrong?

[irdeggman]

Gods and the planes in Darksun... blech! (I've once seen DS 3ed/3.5 described as Forgotten Realms in a desert ;) )


Ahh but only the Paizo version.

The Athas.org (official fan site and the other "Official" version) kept very true to the original setting, IMO. It was not WotC - ized.

[DanMcSorley]

On 6/22/07, Elton Robb <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> In other RPG circles, especially of the HarnMaster kind, our fellow RPGers believe that level
> systems are the bane of a good time. Whose to say that they are wrong?

All the people who have a good time playing D&D every week, including
me, prove that they`re wrong.

--
Daniel McSorley

[irdeggman]

AD&D 2nd Edition is easier to use than D&D 3.x. That's not to mean that they are less complex; both have their strengths and weaknesses over each other. It just depends on how you are going to achieve your fun.

Interesting.

My take.

3.5 is easier to use "out of the box". The DM can more readily match up encounterw with PC's level in order to keep things on a more "even keel" and not go to the TPK or "cake walk" scenarios as easily as could be done with 2nd ed.

Now I have found that (from personal experience mind you) - that one of the biggest difficulties that old time gamers have is in "letting go". When we switched to 3.0 the DM was still playing the game like he was in 2nd ed, relying on memory and not really paying attention to how things worked. The systems are substantially different.

It is this "unlearning" that causes more issues than not.

I really believe based on the "quality and detail" of the rule books that a newbie gamer, who has never played a table-top game before could much more easily walk into a 3.5 game and play it than he could a 2nd ed one. It also comes much closer to matching the electronic games that he is likely to be familiar with than does 2nd ed.

I've already commented on the parrallels to society here and am not saying one is "better" only that this is how it is, or at least how I see it.

[Elton Robb]

On 6/22/07, Elton Robb <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
> In other RPG circles, especially of the HarnMaster kind, our fellow RPGers believe that level
> systems are the bane of a good time. Whose to say that they are wrong?

All the people who have a good time playing D&D every week, including
me, prove that they`re wrong.

--
Daniel McSorley

Ah, exactly. People get their fun from different RPGs. I think the debate is largely one of personalities; actually. Different people prefer different games.

[irdeggman]

Ah, exactly. People get their fun from different RPGs. I think the debate is largely one of personalities; actually. Different people prefer different games.


Quoted For Truth

[ConjurerDragon]

Daniel McSorley schrieb:
> On 6/22/07, Elton Robb <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
>> In other RPG circles, especially of the HarnMaster kind, our fellow
>> RPGers believe that level
>> systems are the bane of a good time. Whose to say that they are wrong?
>
> All the people who have a good time playing D&D every week, including
> me, prove that they`re wrong.
No, you only prove that you have a different opinion than they do.
Neither side proves the other wrong by believing something ;-)

[Dcolby]

I agree with irdeggman in regard of settings using flavour, and losing specific settings all together, but still D&D 3.5 is utterly superior over previous editions... And mechanic means much, leaving DM to deal with the story, as well as providing him/her needed support to depict alternative realities through game system.

Tho, D&D 3.5 system that I use in my Birthright campaign is heavily modified...


Yup it has always been the D.M.s job to supply the flavor. Having a good mechanical basis to squish it into just aids that imo...

Of course I should also point out that I do not think the game is perfect, I play D&D mostly because of the amount of other people that do as well..when I d.m. I seek out interesting settings such as B.R. or come up with my own.

I have other games and other systems that I prefer to the d20 system, they are just rarely as well supported.

[Dcolby]

Interesting.
I really believe based on the "quality and detail" of the rule books that a newbie gamer, who has never played a table-top game before could much more easily walk into a 3.5 game and play it than he could a 2nd ed one. It also comes much closer to matching the electronic games that he is likely to be familiar with than does 2nd ed.

And that is its selling point...It has been more easy to relearn these rules and introduce them to players who never played before then it ever was to learn the 2nd edition rules.

Oh I was hooked the first time I played (Basic D&D and the Keep on the Borderlands) and learned like most everyone else, but I remember the Glazed look that came over peoples faces when say for example you attempted to explain THACO and negative AC to them...

[MatanThunder]

;)

Later I will post a reply that sort of gives my opinion on the pro's and con's of both systems.....

With this post I simply want to post that if I call something a "Waste of Time" that I consider it offered nothing to the game as a whole like CR's.

Also each of use as DM's should always feel free to offer whatever flavor we like. For some it is adding components of Gurps and Arms/Spell Law aspects. No one is right or wrong, just different.

Finally, I will simply post that I have always felt that d20/3.?? didn't really offer that much new to the game. It was a simple marketing ploy to get people to rebuy the same material over and over and over again as the tweaked the material for resale to the newest generation.

You don't have to agree with any of this, but this last statement is quite accurate.

Later

:cool:

PS...Irreg this is exactly the spot for such discussions, since a lot of posters try to drown the site in the 3.?? viewpoint and information. I'm not saying it isn't the prevelent system, but I am mentioning that those of us who use other editions and games with a Birthright campaign should have equal access and debate points on this subject.....IN This Thread!!

[DanMcSorley]

On 6/22/07, Michael Romes <Archmage@t-online.de> wrote:
> > All the people who have a good time playing D&D every week, including
> > me, prove that they`re wrong.
> No, you only prove that you have a different opinion than they do.
> Neither side proves the other wrong by believing something ;-)

I sure did. Elton said they believe no one can have a good time with
"level systems". This is easily disproved, because many people do,
including me.

--
Daniel McSorley

[bbeau22]

I have been playing D&D a LONG time ... here is what I have seen.

D&D saw its creative golden years with 2nd edition. There were balance issues all over the place but with so many well done campaigns and adventures to do it didn't matter too much.

D&D3.5 certainly got balance down pretty well and there are some companies coming out with creative stuff ... but not like 2nd edition .... The Paizo stuff is alot of fun ... adventure paths are the way of the future.

I personally love what they did with 3.5 Birthright. Fixed many of the issues I had and now enjoy running with a few of my friends.

-BB

[AndrewTall]

With this post I simply want to post that if I call something a "Waste of Time" that I consider it offered nothing to the game as a whole like CR's.


I quite like CR's - not so much because its a short-hand to match a challenge to the PC's - some players I know make their characters punch way above/below their nominal weight - but as a part of the xp system to automatically mean that characters who smoke easy foes will gain little/no xp while those who use skill and imagination to take down someone 'out of their league' get more than the norm - without me having to weight the xp and potentially deal with the whining. A final canon end to 'I need 50xp? I teleport back to that goblin camp we hit 10 levels ago and drop a meteor swarm on them...'



Also each of use as DM's should always feel free to offer whatever flavor we like. For some it is adding components of Gurps and Arms/Spell Law aspects. No one is right or wrong, just different.


Always and forever truth :)



Finally, I will simply post that I have always felt that d20/3.?? didn't really offer that much new to the game. It was a simple marketing ploy to get people to rebuy the same material over and over and over again as the tweaked the material for resale to the newest generation.


Hmm, I have more than slight sympathy for the viewpoint - but the more I read on 3.5e the more changes I see to 2e despite the superficial similarity... Skill points for example is more than just an expansion to nwp's; even if I do think I should split the skill table into 'colour' and 'crunch' skills - should my rogue boost 'hide' or 'painting' hmm, I wonder...

But having no skills and powers book is a major loss to 3.5e, I need to find the BR conversion I did...

The consistency of D20 makes it easier to teach newbies the game than AD&D, although none of my players had problems with THAC0 for long (the non-geeks simply said 'THAC0 4 - what do I need?).

I've yet to be convinced by the 'you need a board and counters' combat stuff in 3.5e though - I always left combat more free form in AD&D and haven't enough 3/5e experience to say how much the combat rules do/don't constrain play.

The magic item system is far more consistent with the rest of the magic setting, but a lot of people reverse engineered the 'source spells' for 2e items anyway. Feats are new of course - and a major improvement in making fighters distinctive. Multi-classing and dual classing are definitely better, I never understood the old dual-classing design theory.

The loss of the hp cap, while linked to the multi-class change, was imho a failing of 3.5e - just compare the hp of the BRCS Gorgon to the old 2e one to see the problem...

Unlike MT I'm a big fan of the attempt to balance the classes - the old xp progression was only intermittently effective while internal level progression could produce interesting results for druids in particular. Similarly there is less attempt to balance roll with role which is a big improvement. that said to balance you need to do something about the magic system - while that's so broken

[Dcolby]

D&D saw its creative golden years with 2nd edition. There were balance issues all over the place but with so many well done campaigns and adventures to do it didn't matter too much.-BB

I don't know about the golden years, it had its share of dogs as well. (I am rereading the adventure The Sword of Roele for Instance)

1. Storm Giant/Statue out front supposed to return to life when someone tries to desecrate the Temple. Yet the Temple and parts of its environs have already been violated.

2. The place is lousy with undead created to "Protect its Treasures" yet it is a Temple to Avani erected by Khinasi worshipers who would never use "Undead".

3. The Plot Hooks are really vague. The D.M. has really got to push to fit his players into the adventure.

All in all, (And I am sure I will find more as I reread it) the Adventure was pretty useless without a great deal of D.M. reworking. It feels as if the adventure was hastily reworked from another setting in order to slap a Birthright Tag on it.

But Damn it I will make it work......If I have to recarve every little piece of it.

[Elton Robb]

The Sword of Roele was written for OA.

[Dcolby]

That would explain the "Monkey King"....yuck :mad:

[Elton Robb]

Yeah, Monkey would have never fit in Birthright. I wondered why the Wisest and most Mischeivous of all Chinese Bhuddist icons was doing in Birthright when I figured out it was originally done for Kara-tur.

[AndrewTall]

If you work on the basis that the temple undead were made by El Mimar (the corrupt architect using the orders funds to build his future palace) or El Huffas, the vampire mentioned but then mysteriously undefined in the mod, then the undead can be explained as their doing - although you might need one or both to monologue at the PC's. The giant is then guarding from external threats - not internal corruption.

But the adventure still needs a lot of work.

Please put your mods on the wiki - there's already a tag waiting for a Sword of Roele re-work... http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Adventures
(Jack, like Fred elsewhere is simply an example of how to name such a page).

I tried to think about how to remove the monkey-king - he was somewhat out of place. I decided to have the sword stolen by a thief who wanted to use the Mirrored Gate to summon a champion to use it against the gorgon - the thief's body could be found (complete of course with archaeologists journal and bullwhip) by the PC's as they explored.

[irdeggman]

Yup The Sword of Roele was by far the worst thing TSR put out for BR.

I always felt it was a FR adventure that was transposed into BR just to make a sale.

I mean gates to the planes, the monkey king - really. How much of that really felt like BR? Pretty much none to me.

Now there were some very good adventures for BR that were published and were BR specific, just not enough. BR came out at the wrong time for a financially troubled TSR.

Legend of the Hero Kings had a whole bunch of real good adventures for BR, not all of them but quite a few. I especially loved Blood Hunger - yeah that was tasty one.

[prince_dios]

I was one of those awful nostalgic GMs. I houseruled Kits into 3.0 at the campaign I started after snagging the 3.0 book when it was released at Gencon. :P Truth be told, I'm considering making the jump back.

Firstly, because it feels weird to have Ruins of the Empire out on the table with the 3.X PHB with its grotesque art and Da Vinci style diagrams(in case you didn't know what a 30 year old human looks like).

2E has its advantages. First off, it scares off the kiddies and people who waste their time obsessing over good "builds". :P Second, the lack of reach makes it easier to run without a battle mat and minis.

[Elton Robb]

A good BR adventure set up around the Sword of Roele would be something like an invasion of the Gorgon's Crown and Markazor. In 3.x, everything now is stacked in the Players' favor against the Gorgon -- especially if they catch him off guard. If the PCs used their spells that deal damage from afar correctly and they are high enough level.

In 2e, the PCs would have to design new Wizardly battle magic that would provide them with the advantage (like changing existing weather phenomenae: i.e. altering a hail storm to hail ice daggers, or hail that burned like fire on the ground. Or summoning a plague of locusts [okay, that's a realm spell]).

Getting the Sword of Roele is a dangerous prospect for anyone. The adventure ruined all the fun of retrieving the Sword of Roele from the Gorgon. Monkey stole it and hid it someplace. What?

[irdeggman]

2E has its advantages. First off, it scares off the kiddies and people who waste their time obsessing over good "builds". :P Second, the lack of reach makes it easier to run without a battle mat and minis.


Ahh but 2nd ed had "facing" which was required for things, like say "back stab".

So this is not really that important a distinction IMO.

3.5 did expand (a lot) on the use of battle maps, but they were all over 2nd ed (especially if using Player's Option: Combat and Tactics) just inserted in very awkward ways.

[kgauck]

And weapons did have reach, they were recorded as length in feet, so that a guy with an 11 foot spear had 1 foot on the guy with the 10 foot spear. Like all things 2nd edition a little too much detail .

[ShadowMoon]

And Weapon Speed... ^^;

Which I still use...

[kgauck]

As a modifier to initiative?

[RaspK_FOG]

If you want the opinion of someone who has actually used weapons IRL, I can tell you that weapon speed, unless you house rule that the Strength bonus on melee attacks instead negates part of that penalty and it's the Dexterity bonus on ranged attacks is used for all attack rolls, makes little to no sense. The simplest reasoning our trainer used is: "People wield as heavy a weapon as they can - as long as they can swing it effectively." Note that swords weighing 25 pounds (as a two-handed sword did in 1e, at least) are UNREAL!

[AndrewTall]

If you want the opinion of someone who has actually used weapons IRL, I can tell you that weapon speed, unless you house rule that the Strength bonus on melee attacks instead negates part of that penalty and it's the Dexterity bonus on ranged attacks is used for all attack rolls, makes little to no sense. The simplest reasoning our trainer used is: "People wield as heavy a weapon as they can - as long as they can swing it effectively." Note that swords weighing 25 pounds (as a two-handed sword did in 1e, at least) are UNREAL!

On the contrary, having wielded a considerably lighter than 25 lbs lump-hammer for far too long when breaking a badly-set concrete patio I can assure you that anything 25 lbs meant to be swung repeatedly would be very real indeed :( albeit not much use as a weapon :)

I'd favour adjusting the attack roll depending on weapon size - most weapons being 5 as is the current, more unwieldy weapons dropping each successive attack by 6, 7, 8, etc while well balanced ones dropped it by 4, or for extremely good weapons just 3...

That way a sapling torn from the ground to act as a temporary quarterstaff is a worse weapon than a crafted cudgel despite quite possibly having the same damage potential.

[Elton Robb]

I swung a butterfly sword before. It weighed about 5 to 7 pounds.

Elton.

[ShadowMoon]

As a modifier to initiative?

Yes it modifies Initiative roll...

...

[RaspK_FOG]

I'd suggest people read the rules; sometimes they give excellent mechanics.

For example, improvised weapons give a -4 penalty on attack rolls and VERY little damage; subpar weapons (pitchforks in place of a polearm, a kitchen knife in place of a dagger, and so on) have a -1 or -2 penalty on attack and damage rolls, but otherwise operate the same as the weapon they represent.

For example, a thick fallen branch could deal 1d4 points of damage with a -4 penalty on the attack, whereas a large pestle may very well deal 1d6-1 points of damage with a -1 penalty on the attack roll (the -1 being there instead of the -2 because a large pestle is, pretty much, a mediocre club). Likewise, a pitchfork would get a -2 penalty if you wielded it as a trident, but I expect a normal trident to be used with a -1 penalty instead; a pike would be likewise a spear with a -1 penalty, but a long, sharpened pole could get a -2 penalty instead (-4 if not properly made).

And, no, the whole "UNREAL" comment was about a sword, not a tool.

[AndrewTall]

For example, improvised weapons give a -4 penalty on attack rolls and VERY little damage; subpar weapons (pitchforks in place of a polearm, a kitchen knife in place of a dagger, and so on) have a -1 or -2 penalty on attack and damage rolls, but otherwise operate the same as the weapon they represent...

Weighting the -5 per successive hit actually carries this tend on - not just -2 on each attack, but a cumulative impact to reflect the relative unwieldiness of the weapon. A lump hammer will do just as much damage as a normal hammer - possibly even more, but is less use as a weapon as it is simply too unwieldy to effectively control. So I'd take the -1 or 2 indicated in the rules, and then make them cumulative to later attacks in the same round as I suggested above (so a base attack bonus of +20 giving attacks at +19/+13/+7/+1 not +19/+14/+9/+4 if the weapon is indicated as -1, or +18/+11/+4 if the weapon is indicated as -2).



And, no, the whole "UNREAL" comment was about a sword, not a tool.

Sorry, I assumed the emoticons would explain that I was agreeing with you - it is possible to build a very real 25 lb weapon - which would do plenty of damage if it ever actually connected - the weapon would just be unusable in practice. I could swing that lump-hammer for a while, but the weight made it hard to aim, it took a wind up to use effectively, and was just too heavy to use intensively for a prolonged time - a proper weapon must avoid all 3 flaws...

[RaspK_FOG]

Apart from the second part of your post, the rest I did not understand.

[AndrewTall]

The standard rule is -1 to hit for a improvised weapon. This affects the usual extra attack at -5 rule with a modifier of 1 to each attack.

So BAB +20/+15/+10/+5 say with a standard weapon becomes +19/+14/+9/+4 with a poor quality weapon as I understand the rules.

My suggestion (apologies for the evidently clumsy phraseology) was to make the -1 from the low quality cumulative. So the attack progression would be +19/+13/+7/+1 (i.e. the second attack is at -2 due to the poor quality, the third at -3 - I describe this as -6 not -5 for each successive attack as I thought that simplified matters).

A very low quality weapon (-2 to hit) would similarly be +18/+13/+8/+3 under the standard rules but +18/+11/+4/- with the modification I suggested (-2, -4, -6 from the poor quality weapon)

This means you might get 1 good attack with an improvised weapon, but be much less likely to get a second or third compared to if you used a properly weighted weapon which sounds right to me - a pickaxe may get in one nasty blow but you'd be lucky to get two.

The flip-side of this would be to say that a very well balanced weapon might be at only -4, -8, -12, etc although that would be risky even if limited to light weapons as high level fighters often have large bonuses to damage that swamp the actual weapon damage dice.

[irdeggman]

The standard rule is -1 to hit for a improvised weapon. This affects the usual extra attack at -5 rule with a modifier of 1 to each attack.

So BAB +20/+15/+10/+5 say with a standard weapon becomes +19/+14/+9/+4 with a poor quality weapon as I understand the rules.



Which standard rule?

3.5 (which appears to be the rule set you are using since it is the only one that has BAB.

Improvised weapons (pg 113 of the PHB) have a -4 to attack (because you are non-proficient, since they are not "weapons").

[RaspK_FOG]

Which, all in all, means that, say, a 20th-level character gets +20/+15/+10/+5, -4, or +16/+11/+6/+1 with, say, grabbing hold of a broken fence-post to use it as a great-club (also note that it will deal less damage than a real great-club - say, either 1d6 or 1d8, according to its size). Doing the same with a branch that had some plates fit on haphazardly would probably be a rough-and-tumble sort of a greatclub, which, I guess, works like a greatclub with a -1 penalty on the attack and damage rolls (-2 if little preperation has been made for a poorly shaped branch).

[AndrewTall]

Which standard rule?
Improvised weapons (pg 113 of the PHB) have a -4 to attack (because you are non-proficient, since they are not "weapons").

I was referring to the comment RaspK_Fog made on weapons that are 'nearly weapons' i.e. -1 or -2 BAB not -4 for truly bizarre items. It made the math easier late at night... But I'd use the same principle for a weapon that was -4 as one -4 i.e. a cumulative -4 penalty not simply a recurrent penalty.

So something truly useless as a weapon (-4) would, for a L20 fighter (ignoring other modifiers) +16/+7/- [-4 on first, -5-4-4 on second, -5-4-4-4 on third negating attack] not +16/+11/+6/+1. [-4 on each]

[Lord Rahvin]

I agree with irdeggman`s earlier evaluation of the editions of D&D.

I don`t miss the mechanics of 2e very much, but I do miss the "flavor" of
the rules and implied setting. I don`t think 3e has less of flavor or an
implied setting, (if anything the implication is much stronger,) but the
flavor is less desireable to me. I like (and miss) the pseudo-midieval
nature of 2e D&D and what seemed a desire to play various mythological and
fantasy genres with 2e, as opposed to 3e which seems to want to force you
into a completely different exclusive "D&D mythology".

[kgauck]

But that's just because they included a default setting. Ignore that and replace it with your prefered pseudo-medieval or mythological, and all is well. Plus there are so many supporting settings using the OGL that include tons of flavor and a few mechanics to handle setting specific issues. Playing these kinds of things (and I loved the green Campaign Sourcebooks) meant a lot of special rules and added complexity.

[RaspK_FOG]

@AndrewTall: Sorry if this sounds too harsh, but you are breaking the mechanic; the rules (a preset penalty of -4 for improvised weapons, -2 for inappropriate materials, -1 for subpar weapons; -5 cumulative for each attack after the 1st) work fine just as they are.

[AndrewTall]

@AndrewTall: Sorry if this sounds too harsh, but you are breaking the mechanic; the rules (a preset penalty of -4 for improvised weapons, -2 for inappropriate materials, -1 for subpar weapons; -5 cumulative for each attack after the 1st) work fine just as they are.

No worries, whatever works in your game - I was wondering how such a change would work so mentioned it - I wouldn't normally expect people to use improvised weapons outside of tavern brawls and the like, so extending the mechanic to really hit secondary attacks didn't seem a problem to me, and might possibly persuade an overly arrogant PC's that they do need to surrender to the authorities after a brawl - that club won't actually be much good against the watch after all...