Advanced Dungeons and Dragons [Archive] - Wizards Community

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Darthvegeta800
12-17-05, 07:21 AM Coud someone tell me wether Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is still played a lot? And what the current published manuels are? And what the difference is between ADD and DD?
Thanks i'd appreciate the help.

Also a last question. The scenarios on Wizards.com for DD are some of them for ADD?
RogerWilco
12-17-05, 08:09 AM Basically as far as I know Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is the name for 1st and 2nd edition, as Dungeons and Dragons was an earlier incarnation of the game.
When WotC took over and started 3rd edition, Dungeons and Dragons was no longer around, so they dropped the "Advanced".

As for how much 1st and 2nd edition are still played, I don't know, I used to play 2nd until about a year ago.
Chicharron
12-17-05, 10:18 AM AD&D is no more. There are no current published materials for it because it doesn't exsist. You can find various materials at thrift and vintage book stores. As to if it's still played, the answer is yes. There is still a large contigency of gamers that still hold the earlier editions with a degree of reverence.

As far as the differences between the old editions and the new, they are to broad to list here. Saving throws, armor class, to hit, level progression...just about everything is different.

All the materials on the wizard site are for edition 3.o or up. They have even revamped a couple of great AD&D modules like Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain.
Darthvegeta800
12-17-05, 10:30 AM Aah okay thanks.
Is the new D and D better or do they equal out?
Do you have an idea where the strengths of each lie?
Milo HoBo
12-17-05, 11:06 AM 3.0 and 3.5 have completely changed THAC0 (Two Hit Armor Class Zero) into what is AC today. THat is a strength. [THAC0 is wacko if you're a teen]. I think WotC introduced spontaneous spell casters, but that is coming from my friends who played ADnD. Good gaming.
Darthvegeta800
12-17-05, 11:35 AM (blinks) :confused:
No idea what you said i'm afraid. :D
Bob Loblaw
12-17-05, 11:38 AM I've played every incarnation of DnD since 1979. I really like 3.5. I think it is one of the best systems out there. The mechanics are easier and more consistant than other versions and systems.
Bonuses now all add instead of some subtracting and some adding.
Rolling high is always better.
Saving throws now change with your character and the whatever affect caused the save so now you don't have characters than must only roll a 3 or higher no matter what to save.
Monks, barbarians, and half-orcs are back. You can more easily play a non-standard race.
Multiclassing is better and there are no dual-classing rules (thank the gods).
With the addition of feats and skills, you can customize your character much better but still be playing a member of your class (in other words: you don't need 10 different types of fighters since you can build them all by customizing).
Prestige classes are like kits, but you have to wait until a higher level to take them. They are an additional class you can take to focus your character's abilities.

There are tons of other things as well. I suggest that you find a 3rd edition game and see what you think. I really like the changes.
spoogemonkey
12-21-05, 10:58 AM The actual answer to your question is that Yes - there are still some people that play AD&D... but not many. It is akin to the Flat Earth Society. It is so easy to convert old material that there really isn't any reason (aside from buying the new PHB) to keep you from updating to the newest (and easiest) version. THACO is akin to doing calculus on a slide-rule. Sure, it can be done..... but....
Aliquid
12-21-05, 11:27 AM The actual answer to your question is that Yes - there are still some people that play AD&D... but not many.Go say that on the OOP boards. Actually there are quite a few people playing the old rules.

It is akin to the Flat Earth Society. It is so easy to convert old material that there really isn't any reason (aside from buying the new PHB) to keep you from updating to the newest (and easiest) version.Ever consider that some people actually prefer the older rules? Why convert to a new system when you like the old system better.

I actually know quite a few people that grew up on 1st and 2nd edition AD&D. They happily converted to 3.0 and then 3.5. But now that they have played the new versions for a while, they have decided that they don't like it and they are going back to AD&D.
THACO is akin to doing calculus on a slide-rule. Sure, it can be done..... but....That depends on your math skills. Some people find it quite easy to do THACO in their head, others find it frustrating.
Bob Loblaw
12-21-05, 11:39 AM I really enjoyed 2nd edition, but I prefer 3rd much more. THAC0 wasn't all that hard, but it did require an extra step that is no longer needed. Personally, I'm glad that we no longer use it. It worked for what it was meant to do.
RogerWilco
12-21-05, 12:25 PM First Thac0 = BAB not AC.

The big difference between 1/2 and 3/3.5 is how the "meat" of the rules is structured. In the earlier editions there were a lot of lookup tables. The new 3/3.5 is a system of rules first, it still has some tables, but there's much more of a system to it.
I think the core 3.5 system has more rules than the core 2nd edition, but then the 2nd edition supplements added more rules, while the 3rd edition supplements mainly add options within the existing rule-set.
The "basic" rules for 3rd are however simpeler, in my opinion. There's just stuff like "charge, bull rush, feignt" that in 2nd edition was only defined in supplements, not in the core rule-set.

Overall the 3.5 system has a more flexible, consistent and customiseable feet to it. It does give it a bit more of a "videogame" feeling though.

For example:
In 2nd edition you could either swim or you could not. Now there is this thing called a swim skill, and you can buy ranks in it every level, so you can have +5 to your swim check, or +10. Then the DM decides that you need to throw 20 to (the Difficulty Check) to swim accros that river. In 2nd edition, you either could or could not swim across the river, in 3rd edition, everybody has a chance, depending on how many ranks they have in te skill "swim".
Darthvegeta800
12-21-05, 12:42 PM I see. And what are the good things about ADD? The strong points? I mean there has to be something better?
Tzor
12-21-05, 01:32 PM I've been playing AD&D since before there was such a thing as "Edition." (In other words first edition.) Each version had good and bad points. Each addition was an improvement of some sort. Each addition had things I liked and things I disliked.

First edition was table driven. A major advantage of table driven design is non linear progressions. Switching classes was not an option then, and so different classes would progress along at different rates ... some would be more powerful up front and others would be more powerful towards the high levels. To hit tables were also non linear allowing a natural 20 to have a bigger (but not an auto hit) impact on combat.

The first edition ranger had access to both cleric and wizard spells.

The assassin was a class (not a PrC) and a half orc could multi-class into a cleric/assassin.

Sharpness - like vorpal only it impacted a random appendage.
Aliquid
12-21-05, 02:39 PM Try this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=556412) thread
Darthvegeta800
12-21-05, 02:49 PM Thanks guys. Very interesting. :)
pangalactic
12-21-05, 06:47 PM It annoys me when people moan about THAC0. It's simple arithmetic. I've been playing 2E AD&D for 12 years, and it's the only version of D&D I've really played. So it's my favourite by default. I could see myself coming to really like 3.5, but I've nobody to teach it to me properly and I'm rubbish at learning from books. Once I find a DM, though, I imagine I'll love it - it seems much more intuitive to me. Even though minis have replaced good old imagination when it comes to combat. I've never once used minis in combat. Ever.
BladeDrinker
12-21-05, 07:10 PM It annoys me when people moan about THAC0. It's simple arithmetic.

It's counter-intuitive for some people. 9 out of 10 people don't have trouble with it after the first session, but there's always going to be one person every two or three groups that just struggles with it, and it's a pain for everyone to have to help them with it every single session. (Can you tell I found that irritating?) And the person who can't handle abstactions feels like an idiot and doesn't want to play.

I've been playing 2E AD&D for 12 years, and it's the only version of D&D I've really played. So it's my favourite by default. I could see myself coming to really like 3.5, but I've nobody to teach it to me properly and I'm rubbish at learning from books.

The initial "buy in" phase of learning the system is harder than 2E, but after that it's easier than 2E. Mainly because all of the system itself is more complicated, but there are fewer exceptions, tables and the like that you have to consider.

Even though minis have replaced good old imagination when it comes to combat. I've never once used minis in combat. Ever.

They really make things much easier to handle for the DM. One person might be able to map out an entire battlefield with distances, facing and line of sight noted all in their head, but I have never met a group that could visualize it all together. You'd have to be telepathic.

1E did some things better than 3/3.5, and the new system does some things better than the old editions. It's a question of personal taste as to which one is best for you.
Tehril
12-21-05, 09:32 PM AD&D had alot more "fluff" material in the books. It also had some complicated, counter intuitive parts to it.

I played, and enjoyed, AD&D for many years... yet, I went to create a character for it some months ago and came away feeling burned out. All from one character.

I've just become so accustomed to 3.5, and it's ability to adapt to the character I want to play, to go back now. I guess I've lost my ruby slippers.
Darkmeer
12-21-05, 10:05 PM Simply put
AD&D had much more fluff in the books. They had a reasonably solid set of rules that, once you knew the basics, you could reasonably make a solid and fun character. The disadvantage was as has been given, you had a skill or didn't. There was no chance if you didn't have the skill.

3.x is linear, easy to follow, and has a list of Untrained skills. The problem with 3.x is that the books have a much higher percentage of crunch to the fluff. I like my books fluffy (thus love a few oop campaign settings).

/d
High Octane
12-21-05, 10:08 PM My friends and I still play 1st edition on fridays. We have a 22 year veteran of 1st edition who DMs.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Darthvegeta800 12-17-05, 07:21 AM	Coud someone tell me wether Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is still played a lot? And what the current published manuels are? And what the difference is between ADD and DD? Thanks i'd appreciate the help. Also a last question. The scenarios on Wizards.com for DD are some of them for ADD?
RogerWilco 12-17-05, 08:09 AM	Basically as far as I know Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is the name for 1st and 2nd edition, as Dungeons and Dragons was an earlier incarnation of the game. When WotC took over and started 3rd edition, Dungeons and Dragons was no longer around, so they dropped the "Advanced". As for how much 1st and 2nd edition are still played, I don't know, I used to play 2nd until about a year ago.
Chicharron 12-17-05, 10:18 AM	AD&D is no more. There are no current published materials for it because it doesn't exsist. You can find various materials at thrift and vintage book stores. As to if it's still played, the answer is yes. There is still a large contigency of gamers that still hold the earlier editions with a degree of reverence. As far as the differences between the old editions and the new, they are to broad to list here. Saving throws, armor class, to hit, level progression...just about everything is different. All the materials on the wizard site are for edition 3.o or up. They have even revamped a couple of great AD&D modules like Tomb of Horrors and White Plume Mountain.
Darthvegeta800 12-17-05, 10:30 AM	Aah okay thanks. Is the new D and D better or do they equal out? Do you have an idea where the strengths of each lie?
Milo HoBo 12-17-05, 11:06 AM	3.0 and 3.5 have completely changed THAC0 (Two Hit Armor Class Zero) into what is AC today. THat is a strength. [THAC0 is wacko if you're a teen]. I think WotC introduced spontaneous spell casters, but that is coming from my friends who played ADnD. Good gaming.
Darthvegeta800 12-17-05, 11:35 AM	(blinks) :confused: No idea what you said i'm afraid. :D
Bob Loblaw 12-17-05, 11:38 AM	I've played every incarnation of DnD since 1979. I really like 3.5. I think it is one of the best systems out there. The mechanics are easier and more consistant than other versions and systems. Bonuses now all add instead of some subtracting and some adding. Rolling high is always better. Saving throws now change with your character and the whatever affect caused the save so now you don't have characters than must only roll a 3 or higher no matter what to save. Monks, barbarians, and half-orcs are back. You can more easily play a non-standard race. Multiclassing is better and there are no dual-classing rules (thank the gods). With the addition of feats and skills, you can customize your character much better but still be playing a member of your class (in other words: you don't need 10 different types of fighters since you can build them all by customizing). Prestige classes are like kits, but you have to wait until a higher level to take them. They are an additional class you can take to focus your character's abilities. There are tons of other things as well. I suggest that you find a 3rd edition game and see what you think. I really like the changes.
spoogemonkey 12-21-05, 10:58 AM	The actual answer to your question is that Yes - there are still some people that play AD&D... but not many. It is akin to the Flat Earth Society. It is so easy to convert old material that there really isn't any reason (aside from buying the new PHB) to keep you from updating to the newest (and easiest) version. THACO is akin to doing calculus on a slide-rule. Sure, it can be done..... but....
Aliquid 12-21-05, 11:27 AM	The actual answer to your question is that Yes - there are still some people that play AD&D... but not many.Go say that on the OOP boards. Actually there are quite a few people playing the old rules. It is akin to the Flat Earth Society. It is so easy to convert old material that there really isn't any reason (aside from buying the new PHB) to keep you from updating to the newest (and easiest) version.Ever consider that some people actually prefer the older rules? Why convert to a new system when you like the old system better. I actually know quite a few people that grew up on 1st and 2nd edition AD&D. They happily converted to 3.0 and then 3.5. But now that they have played the new versions for a while, they have decided that they don't like it and they are going back to AD&D. THACO is akin to doing calculus on a slide-rule. Sure, it can be done..... but....That depends on your math skills. Some people find it quite easy to do THACO in their head, others find it frustrating.
Bob Loblaw 12-21-05, 11:39 AM	I really enjoyed 2nd edition, but I prefer 3rd much more. THAC0 wasn't all that hard, but it did require an extra step that is no longer needed. Personally, I'm glad that we no longer use it. It worked for what it was meant to do.
RogerWilco 12-21-05, 12:25 PM	First Thac0 = BAB not AC. The big difference between 1/2 and 3/3.5 is how the "meat" of the rules is structured. In the earlier editions there were a lot of lookup tables. The new 3/3.5 is a system of rules first, it still has some tables, but there's much more of a system to it. I think the core 3.5 system has more rules than the core 2nd edition, but then the 2nd edition supplements added more rules, while the 3rd edition supplements mainly add options within the existing rule-set. The "basic" rules for 3rd are however simpeler, in my opinion. There's just stuff like "charge, bull rush, feignt" that in 2nd edition was only defined in supplements, not in the core rule-set. Overall the 3.5 system has a more flexible, consistent and customiseable feet to it. It does give it a bit more of a "videogame" feeling though. For example: In 2nd edition you could either swim or you could not. Now there is this thing called a swim skill, and you can buy ranks in it every level, so you can have +5 to your swim check, or +10. Then the DM decides that you need to throw 20 to (the Difficulty Check) to swim accros that river. In 2nd edition, you either could or could not swim across the river, in 3rd edition, everybody has a chance, depending on how many ranks they have in te skill "swim".
Darthvegeta800 12-21-05, 12:42 PM	I see. And what are the good things about ADD? The strong points? I mean there has to be something better?
Tzor 12-21-05, 01:32 PM	I've been playing AD&D since before there was such a thing as "Edition." (In other words first edition.) Each version had good and bad points. Each addition was an improvement of some sort. Each addition had things I liked and things I disliked. First edition was table driven. A major advantage of table driven design is non linear progressions. Switching classes was not an option then, and so different classes would progress along at different rates ... some would be more powerful up front and others would be more powerful towards the high levels. To hit tables were also non linear allowing a natural 20 to have a bigger (but not an auto hit) impact on combat. The first edition ranger had access to both cleric and wizard spells. The assassin was a class (not a PrC) and a half orc could multi-class into a cleric/assassin. Sharpness - like vorpal only it impacted a random appendage.
Aliquid 12-21-05, 02:39 PM	Try this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=556412) thread
Darthvegeta800 12-21-05, 02:49 PM	Thanks guys. Very interesting. :)
pangalactic 12-21-05, 06:47 PM	It annoys me when people moan about THAC0. It's simple arithmetic. I've been playing 2E AD&D for 12 years, and it's the only version of D&D I've really played. So it's my favourite by default. I could see myself coming to really like 3.5, but I've nobody to teach it to me properly and I'm rubbish at learning from books. Once I find a DM, though, I imagine I'll love it - it seems much more intuitive to me. Even though minis have replaced good old imagination when it comes to combat. I've never once used minis in combat. Ever.
BladeDrinker 12-21-05, 07:10 PM	It annoys me when people moan about THAC0. It's simple arithmetic. It's counter-intuitive for some people. 9 out of 10 people don't have trouble with it after the first session, but there's always going to be one person every two or three groups that just struggles with it, and it's a pain for everyone to have to help them with it every single session. (Can you tell I found that irritating?) And the person who can't handle abstactions feels like an idiot and doesn't want to play. I've been playing 2E AD&D for 12 years, and it's the only version of D&D I've really played. So it's my favourite by default. I could see myself coming to really like 3.5, but I've nobody to teach it to me properly and I'm rubbish at learning from books. The initial "buy in" phase of learning the system is harder than 2E, but after that it's easier than 2E. Mainly because all of the system itself is more complicated, but there are fewer exceptions, tables and the like that you have to consider. Even though minis have replaced good old imagination when it comes to combat. I've never once used minis in combat. Ever. They really make things much easier to handle for the DM. One person might be able to map out an entire battlefield with distances, facing and line of sight noted all in their head, but I have never met a group that could visualize it all together. You'd have to be telepathic. 1E did some things better than 3/3.5, and the new system does some things better than the old editions. It's a question of personal taste as to which one is best for you.
Tehril 12-21-05, 09:32 PM	AD&D had alot more "fluff" material in the books. It also had some complicated, counter intuitive parts to it. I played, and enjoyed, AD&D for many years... yet, I went to create a character for it some months ago and came away feeling burned out. All from one character. I've just become so accustomed to 3.5, and it's ability to adapt to the character I want to play, to go back now. I guess I've lost my ruby slippers.
Darkmeer 12-21-05, 10:05 PM	Simply put AD&D had much more fluff in the books. They had a reasonably solid set of rules that, once you knew the basics, you could reasonably make a solid and fun character. The disadvantage was as has been given, you had a skill or didn't. There was no chance if you didn't have the skill. 3.x is linear, easy to follow, and has a list of Untrained skills. The problem with 3.x is that the books have a much higher percentage of crunch to the fluff. I like my books fluffy (thus love a few oop campaign settings). /d
High Octane 12-21-05, 10:08 PM	My friends and I still play 1st edition on fridays. We have a 22 year veteran of 1st edition who DMs.