Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wyrmslave 03-16-07, 03:47 PM	Do any of the older players (or anyone who still uses the original Edition, before TSR sold out to WotC) remember how DnD was played before the introduction of the d20 system? I just can't imagine DnD without the dice, feats, and skills... EDIT: I get the point, dice WERE around, that's a load of the cerebrum :P
Zersch 03-16-07, 03:57 PM	Well, dice were used back then as well. I had as much fun playing then as I do now. I look at like playing D&D and say, Shadowrun. You're just using different engines to achieve the same end result. An enjoyable evening with your friends.
I_Strahd 03-16-07, 03:59 PM	Do any of the older players (or anyone who still uses the original Edition, before TSR sold out to WotC) remember how DnD was played before the introduction of the d20 system? I just can't imagine DnD without the dice, feats, and skills... dice, feats, and skills they had those things. the problem was we didnt have paper or any thing to write with. those inventions are considered works of the DEVIL.
Seghan 03-16-07, 04:01 PM	As I recall, there was a great deal of math. And THAC0.
khyron1144 03-16-07, 04:11 PM	Do any of the older players (or anyone who still uses the original Edition, before TSR sold out to WotC) remember how DnD was played before the introduction of the d20 system? I just can't imagine DnD without the dice, feats, and skills... Yes, I do remember quite well. You don't seem to, however. There were dice. There have always been dice. There were skills, but they weren't emphasized as much because most unusual questions could be resolved with some kind of roll under Attribute X on d20 roll. Did I fall down there? Roll your Dex or less on a d20. Feats kind of existed but were generally built into a particular class or kit without much customization. Rangers could track and tame animals. Druids know about plants. A fighter with the Berserker kit could get all foaming at the mouth.
mike_beavers 03-16-07, 04:15 PM	yep thaco and negative ac's, non weapon proficencies, level limitations for non-humans, class limitations for non-humans, difference experience points for classes. charts that you had to roll high or roll low with no rhyme or reason. I played it from 1975 to 2000 when 3rd came out. I had a great time with it then and still do to this day.
GrimshofHighSorcery 03-16-07, 04:20 PM	yea....2nd edition:invasion:....it was much easier to roleplay, and much easier to do things as there wasnt a rule that was changed in every 5 sourcebooks....and there was actually fluff, and not as much rules, it was nice. However, THAC0 sucked the big one, but i did like how the initiative, and weapon speed factors:) It was sooooooooooo much easier, and soooooooooooooooo much more fun
Wyrmslave 03-16-07, 04:31 PM	Yes, I do remember quite well. You don't seem to, however. There were dice. There have always been dice. There were skills, but they weren't emphasized as much because most unusual questions could be resolved with some kind of roll under Attribute X on d20 roll. Did I fall down there? Roll your Dex or less on a d20. Feats kind of existed but were generally built into a particular class or kit without much customization. Rangers could track and tame animals. Druids know about plants. A fighter with the Berserker kit could get all foaming at the mouth. How can I "remember" if I started playing, well reading up, since only recently? :P
LordThavian 03-16-07, 04:55 PM	I miss 2nd Edition... aside from THAC0! :rofl:
Seeker95 03-16-07, 04:56 PM	pre-3e. Ahhh... I remember it well. I have played every edition since 1978 (I did not play in the OD&D white box set from 1974), and with each new edition I have enjoyed the game even more. Makes me eager to see 4e released as soon as possible! :devil:
khyron1144 03-16-07, 04:57 PM	How can I "remember" if I started playing, well reading up, since only recently? :P Good point. I was not trying to be hostile. I found the comment about dice rather bewildering is all. I miss 2nd Edition... aside from THAC0! :rofl: I liked THAC0. One of the aspects of THAC0 that goes unappreciated is that by requiring players to know how to perform addition and subtraction of negative numbers it served as a screening feature. I don't want to play D&D with anyone who can't do seventh grade math.
Wyrmslave 03-16-07, 05:09 PM	pre-3e. Ahhh... I remember it well. I have played every edition since 1978 (I did not play in the OD&D white box set from 1974), and with each new edition I have enjoyed the game even more. Makes me eager to see 4e released as soon as possible! :devil: Great Cthulhu, I hope not. I can barely afford what my campaign needs NOW. But, I'm sure we can survive with 3.5e for a bit longer, but I wonder if 4e will be FR-compatible :eek: But that's way off-topic, so I'll cease my rantings.
Escef 03-16-07, 06:01 PM	... but I wonder if 4e will be FR-compatible :eek: If the Realms could be done in 1e, 2e, and 3e, I somehow doubt that 4e will be any different.
khyron1144 03-16-07, 06:36 PM	If you're really curious about older editions of D&D, you might want to look at the Out of Print Board (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=54). The crew there is as friendly as anyone on these boards.
Thunder Dragonbane 03-16-07, 07:19 PM	One of the aspects of THAC0 that goes unappreciated is that by requiring players to know how to perform addition and subtraction of negative numbers it served as a screening feature. I don't want to play D&D with anyone who can't do seventh grade math. I never had a problem with it. As a matter of fact I think I finnally figured out how to do basic math quicker because of playing. Atuually there are some things that I liked more in the old versions than I do now. Everything was more streamlined and you did not always need the battle mat in front of you. I miss the days of sitting in my lazyboy and having my players on the couches. Now you have to have a table big enough for your players and the mat.
Bruunwald 03-16-07, 07:20 PM	The crew there is as friendly as anyone on these boards. I thought you were trying to encourage him.
khyron1144 03-16-07, 07:37 PM	I thought you were trying to encourage him. I meant it in the good way.
a_psh 03-16-07, 07:51 PM	If you're really curious about older editions of D&D, you might want to look at the Out of Print Board (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=54).OSRIC (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=21074&) is also said to be a passably good imitation of older D&D.
TheRealOrion 03-16-07, 08:50 PM	The biggest difference was the battlemats. We just didn't use them back then because the rules for reach and distance weren't so set. 2nd Ed. (I never played 1st, really) was more literary, to me. It was about cool-ass description as much as anything else, and there were far fewer rules about resolving this or that problem. There was also far, far more room to do unusual things, like "I roll between his legs and kick him in the crotch." The possibilities were wide open because there were no game mechanics to resolve that kind of stuff... and that was okay! 3rd, much as I love it, is much more like a video game. Everything has a set limit (or at least, that's the goal), you simply can't make an attack that isn't in the rules or has a feat attached to it, if you don't have a particular skill then, no, you don't know that/can't do that, even though you should, by all rights. Don't get me wrong. 3rd Ed. solves a lot of problems we had back in 2nd. The math is way easier, for example, and we've almost eliminated fraction! But there was something fast-and-loose about 2nd. As for "being able to do subtraction," THAC0 was a uselessly complicated rubric for resolving fights. BAB is exactly the same numbers, just presented without an annoying middle step in between that actually did gum up a lot of people's brains. You can posture about "screen out the morons" all you like, but BAB is faster and easier. There's no downside to that.
Seeker95 03-16-07, 09:41 PM	The biggest difference was the battlemats. We just didn't use them back then because the rules for reach and distance weren't so set.I thought we didn't use them because large format printers were too damned expensive. :D
pukunui 03-16-07, 09:52 PM	(... before TSR sold out to WotC) Last edited by Wyrmslave: Today at 09:34 AM. Reason: Gained 2 Ranks in Knowledge (TSR) LOL. I'd suggest reading this wiki article: TSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSR,_Inc.) and this thread: What Destroyed TSR? (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=807057)
myusernameis 03-16-07, 09:56 PM	Now you have to have a table big enough for your players and the mat.Am I the only 3rd edition player who's never used a battlemat or anything like that?
Seeker95 03-16-07, 10:40 PM	Am I the only 3rd edition player who's never used a battlemat or anything like that?Yes. :P
johnhansen 03-16-07, 11:20 PM	2nd addition was much more of a relax on the couch game with a coffee table for your drinks and once in a while miniatures, 3.5 is much more of a sit up strait in a chair around a dining room table and try not to knock over your drink while moving miniatures every couple of rounds. Thats how I see it.
Thunder Dragonbane 03-17-07, 12:22 AM	Am I the only 3rd edition player who's never used a battlemat or anything like that? With the way combat is resolved in 3.5 I need a mat just to keep everything in prespective. Even simple combats need the damn thing, 3.5 is more about wargaming than role-playing. I did not often need that in 1st or 2nd ed. Only when I was running mass combats where I used risk counters, or M&M's for minis (it beats having to find hunderds of minis).
CedricBrooks 03-17-07, 12:37 AM	Am I the only 3rd edition player who's never used a battlemat or anything like that? Nope, I've never seen one, and don't see the need, I've seen a quick sketch of the area once or twice but that's about it.
JoAT 03-17-07, 01:06 AM	yea....2nd edition ....it was much easier to roleplay, and much easier to do things as there wasnt a rule that was changed in every 5 sourcebooks....and there was actually fluff, and not as much rules, it was nice. Indeed, they didn't change the rules every 5 sourcebooks - it was more like every 3 :D That said, I do miss allot of second edition, and most of it has to do with the fluff. Not so much the quantity, but the quality - back in the day, I'd bring my Planescape, Darksun, even Chronomacer or Spells and Magic to school with me, and read them for the inspiration, not the mechanics. The books were a real joy. These days, the only books I can really do that with are the Eberron books, and even then they tend to bore after a while. Of course, there was allot of suckage in the flavor of many Complete books and the like, but we do tend to focus on the good of nostalgia.
Palomides 03-17-07, 01:13 AM	Concenring dice: in 1st and 2nd edition we did use most of them, having in mind d12, d10 and d100, which are rarely use now. Spells now are better. It was a lot tougher to cast spells. The actual class system is better. Anyone can multiclass. You can raise to any level (Human could not multiclass and non-human could not raise over 8 o 9 level in most class). And no need of **** like 18 of charisma, 15 of wisdom, and ... to qualify for a class. It was way simpler and less time consuming to create a npc.
Archangel62 03-17-07, 01:18 AM	yea....2nd edition:invasion:....it was much easier to roleplay, and much easier to do things as there wasnt a rule that was changed in every 5 sourcebooks....and there was actually fluff, and not as much rules, it was nice. However, THAC0 sucked the big one, but i did like how the initiative, and weapon speed factors:) It was sooooooooooo much easier, and soooooooooooooooo much more fun Wow...you and I must have been playing a different 2nd edition. There were rules changes about every 3...so I guess if you wanted more changes that works too. As for fluff, fluff is all well and good but I can invent and adapt my own fluff, I'd rather have useful crunch thank you very much. And roleplay was no harder or easier, it's just that now people can actually back up their concept more easily.
Solaris 03-17-07, 01:23 AM	And no need of **** like 18 of charisma, 15 of wisdom, and ... to qualify for a class.Yeah, it makes no sense to require magic-users to be intelligent. No sense at all. And any old schmuck has what it takes to be a paladin. Yep. Or maybe (and I'm going way out on a limb here), if you're not smart enough you don't get a PhD in physics, and if you're not athletic enough you don't get to play pro football, and the ability score requirements were simply a reflection of the fact that if you don't have the right qualities for a class/profession, then you probably won't manage to get trained in it. But no, that's silly. It was just ****.
Palomides 03-17-07, 01:40 AM	My first character had str 17 con 10 dex 8 int 7 wis 5 cha 9. Not many choice of class hey. Early years of DnD you did not choose you class before your stats. You choose your class according to you stat. Now a paladin can have 8 of cha, he is not an effective paladin, but he is one. :D
Imperator58 03-17-07, 03:50 AM	I dunno, I just remember in 1977 it was just more fun. There was less dredging through Rules and more inventive playing. It was... purer.
Seeker95 03-17-07, 07:24 AM	Even simple combats need the damn thing, 3.5 is more about wargaming than role-playing.Not in the least. 3.5 combat rules are more extensive than ever because people have expanded their roleplaying aspect of the game to include much more creative combat. Flanking, grappling, tripping, aid another, 5-foot steps, reach, firing into melee, cover, concealment, fighting from prone -- all of these combat mechanics came out of a more descriptive combat approach. When enough players asked what the mechanics of such descriptive maneuvers might be, the designers answered. 3.5 (and 3e in general) made into canon what 28+ years of house rules had already implemented in games across the country/world.
Roxlimn 03-17-07, 07:48 AM	You don't need a battlemat to play 3.5e D&D. It's quite easy to simply do away with them. 2e is harder because it was much harder to maintain consistency. Once people had their favorite moves down pat, you usually had to make up rules to codify the thing or it could get really ugly, really fast. In 3e, nearly every move you can describe is in the rules or can be extrapolated with solid grounding and consistency. Players don't need to see the battlemat if you can describe the action well enough, and you yourself don't need one if you can just keep track of everything in your head. Distance was always a sore point for us in 2e. A Fireball was so and so distance, but melee and movement were what? Handwaved away? For those 2e fans who wanted it, you COULD be much more strict about distances and running, but it was clunky and involved measuring distances with rulers and such. There was absolutely no way you could not do it by minis unless you were playing fast and loose. 3e is all about the "making it happen." If you think everyone should be able to attack in the manner that's in a feat somewhere, then simply rule that everyone has the feat! Very simple, very nice. After all, no one needs Improved Trip to make a trip attack. All in all, I find 3e to be significantly superior.
johnkretzer 03-17-07, 01:19 PM	2nd Ed. (I never played 1st, really) was more literary, to me. It was about cool-ass description as much as anything else, and there were far fewer rules about resolving this or that problem. There was also far, far more room to do unusual things, like "I roll between his legs and kick him in the crotch." The possibilities were wide open because there were no game mechanics to resolve that kind of stuff... and that was okay! 3rd, much as I love it, is much more like a video game. Everything has a set limit (or at least, that's the goal), you simply can't make an attack that isn't in the rules or has a feat attached to it, if you don't have a particular skill then, no, you don't know that/can't do that, even though you should, by all rights. um...you can 'roll between his legs and kick him in the crotch'...it is called a tumble check with a stunning strikle unarmed...or just a regular strike that the DM can rule on. And why should you be able to tumble around in combat if you don't know how? I mean what all adventures are trained to be acrobatic experts? Also with non weapon profiecenties of 2nd edition you had the same limitions... A restrictivbe DM is still a restrictive DM no matter what edition he plays un.
nightwyrm 03-17-07, 02:30 PM	The thing I missed from 2ed is the quests needed to make magic items. Now, it's just pay gold and xp and voila: magic sword. I wish they had made a rule variant where special materials and processes were required for crafting.
Seeker95 03-17-07, 03:05 PM	The thing I missed from 2ed is the quests needed to make magic items. Now, it's just pay gold and xp and voila: magic sword.Not in my game. :devil:I wish they had made a rule variant where special materials and processes were required for crafting.In my game (and in my opinion, available in all games) this is the norm. It is the DM's responsibility to add as much (or as little) in-game requirements as desired for magic item creation, acquisition, purchase, sale or commission.
celtredleg 03-17-07, 04:33 PM	I guess different groups, different games. I started in 1977 with the white box, and we always used Minis. To start with, most of them where Napoleonics or ancients wargame figures, but they where still there. I agree that each edition has made improvements. I see way fewer arguments over mechanic now than then. As far as it being better for RP, no game can make you RP, you have to do that for your self. I think a lot of us remeber it as cooler, because it was new. Now we have been playing for a lot of years, and it is not new and wonderous. But still fun.
Escef 03-17-07, 04:39 PM	Indeed, everyone griping about how 3.5 requires minis is off their rocker. And they are also forgetting that D&D originally was a fantasy supplement for a miniatures wargame. Hell, in 1e distances were measured in inches for tabletop models.
High Octane 03-17-07, 04:47 PM	I dunno, I just remember in 1977 it was just more fun. There was less dredging through Rules and more inventive playing. It was... purer. And back in my day, all kids were good and respected their parents. Not like kids today with their dag'gum rock and roll music. Everything was better back then. politicians never lied, everyone worked harder, and everyone loved their country! Back then interest rates were reasonable and the taxes werent so dang high! *takes off his rose-tinted glasses* OH MY GOD DID THAT SYSTEM SUCK!
John Paul Stoddard 03-17-07, 04:50 PM	I thought we didn't use them because large format printers were too damned expensive. :D WRONG WRONG Thinking of BattleMaps Not Battlemats....those were the Vinyl sheets 1 INCH Sq Grid printed which you Drew the Maps onto by hand Can tell your not old enough to remember back that far:P or may be your to old to remember correctly:weep:
Escef 03-17-07, 05:02 PM	...or may be your to old to remember correctly:weep: Where do you think the "95" inhis name came from? Sure ain't when he was born... Unless it was 1895, heh, heh. :D
captainswift 03-17-07, 06:17 PM	I use hastily sketched maps, and pencil in the positions of characters and monsters, erase and redraw as they move. No battlemaps, battlemats, miniatures, or even M&Ms. It's all good.
Wyrmslave 03-17-07, 06:38 PM	In my opinion, I would like to be organized before we start our campaign, so I'd go for the battlemat...map...whatever. As for minis? Dunno 'bout that yet. Nonetheless, it's WHERE the characters are compared between the actual map and the ones shown on the books that'll be something to think about.
Dyssenion 03-17-07, 08:41 PM	Do any of the older players (or anyone who still uses the original Edition, before TSR sold out to WotC) remember how DnD was played before the introduction of the d20 system? I just can't imagine DnD without the dice, feats, and skills... EDIT: I get the point, dice WERE around, that's a load of the cerebrum :P As a DM since 1983 using TSR's 1st, 2nd and currently a bit of 3rd, I found myself missing the 2nd Edition most of all. The new D20 Skills and Feats (among all of the new rules) have created a style of play and character generation/development that doesn't seem as fun to me. I can see the commercial appeal, but I guess I'm an old fashioned guy who figures "if it ain't broke don't fix it". But RPG's, no matter what system, are the greatest games for a myriad of reasons. Go AD&D 2nd Edition!
Zaxon D'Mir 03-17-07, 09:56 PM	I dunno, I just remember in 1977 it was just more fun. There was less dredging through Rules and more inventive playing. It was... purer. That's because there was a lot of flying by the seat of your pants back then. If Skip Williams didn't cover it in a Sage Advice column we just made it up and stuck with it. And Seeker95 is right about the collected house rules. When I first cracked open a 3.0 PHB I thought I was looking at half the rules we created at the gaming table to suit our game. No level limits or class restrictions for demi-humans comes to mind. However, you are right there is something about the older editions that seems more appealing to me too. In theory, based on level, class and attribute scores any 1e/2e character could mimic 3.5's skills and feats. It depends on what a 1e/2e DM would allow.
Ramses III 03-17-07, 10:02 PM	Am I the only 3rd edition player who's never used a battlemat or anything like that? I got one right before the start of my current campaign; it's great. I used to have a player who would argue every time his character was hit because he "was on the other side of the room." No more of that crap (not that he's playing in my current game anyway). There's also no question about where a character can get to in a round, who's flanking whom, or any of those little problematic things that can slow down a game.
a_psh 03-18-07, 03:54 AM	I dunno, I just remember in 1977 it was just more fun. There was less dredging through Rules and more inventive playing. It was... purer.Just so you know, this prompted a rant (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11810803). I put it on its own thread because it's not really criticizing your post or even responding to it directly per se.
Seeker95 03-18-07, 08:26 AM	there is something about the older editions that seems more appealing to me too.It is called nostalgia. It is the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from remembering anything good and selectively ignoring the bad that went along with it. We will be saying the same thing about 3e when we get six years into 4th edition.
Zaxon D'Mir 03-18-07, 09:14 AM	It is called nostalgia. It is the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from remembering anything good and selectively ignoring the bad that went along with it. We will be saying the same thing about 3e when we get six years into 4th edition. Yep, you're right, but I love those warm fuzzy feelings because they're memories of good times with good friends. :weep:
Wyrmslave 03-18-07, 11:37 AM	Yep, you're right, but I love those warm fuzzy feelings because they're memories of good times with good friends. :weep: And when Lord Cthulhu had his own pantheon, or at least was included in one :coolcthul
johnkretzer 03-18-07, 11:53 AM	The thing I missed from 2ed is the quests needed to make magic items. Now, it's just pay gold and xp and voila: magic sword. I wish they had made a rule variant where special materials and processes were required for crafting. I personaly do have this varient in my game....though it works more to discount the cost of the item a little bit. But hey nothing in the rule forbids you on creating it.
DrMorganes 03-18-07, 12:28 PM	I miss 2nd Edition... aside from THAC0! :rofl: What's the deal with reviling THAC0? Honestly, it was far, far faster than looking up your "To Hit" number in those blasted tables in the DMG. A bit of simple math - subtract your opponent's AC from your THAC0 - and there ya go! It followed EXACTLY the same progression as the DMG tables, just in a convenient ready-to-eat package.
Kursk 03-18-07, 12:47 PM	The thing I missed from 2ed is the quests needed to make magic items. Now, it's just pay gold and xp and voila: magic sword. I wish they had made a rule variant where special materials and processes were required for crafting. Make you own rules. I do. Certain magic items take rare/exotic materials. Bingo. Done.
Kursk 03-18-07, 12:49 PM	We will be saying the same thing about 3e when we get six years into 4th edition. I have a feeling you're right. 4th will probably be a lot less RPG and a lot more like a P&P computer game hybrid.
johnkretzer 03-18-07, 01:01 PM	I have a feeling you're right. 4th will probably be a lot less RPG and a lot more like a P&P computer game hybrid. Not to start the whole chicken & egg arguement but the facts is Computer games have always tried to be like paper RPGs. So the fact many of you veiw that D&D is becoming like a computer game ignores the fact that D&D have been around a alot longer then said computer games. So of course D&D might feel like a computer game at times but that is because those computer games have been copying D&D for years now.
Wyrmslave 03-18-07, 01:12 PM	Not to start the whole chicken & egg arguement but the facts is Computer games have always tried to be like paper RPGs. So the fact many of you veiw that D&D is becoming like a computer game ignores the fact that D&D have been around a alot longer then said computer games. So of course D&D might feel like a computer game at times but that is because those computer games have been copying D&D for years now. Couldn't say it better myself. :cookie: for you!!
Waterhammer 03-18-07, 02:36 PM	Actually there are still ability requirements for spell-casting classes, at least. For instance Int 11 minimum for wizard. I suppose you could go with a lower Int, but a sorry wizard you'd be, without the ability to cast spells.
Escef 03-18-07, 03:05 PM	Actually there are still ability requirements for spell-casting classes, at least. For instance Int 11 minimum for wizard. I suppose you could go with a lower Int, but a sorry wizard you'd be, without the ability to cast spells. Incorrect, a wizard with Int 10 can still do cantrips. :P
Waterhammer 03-18-07, 04:15 PM	Incorrect, a wizard with Int 10 can still do cantrips. :P Oh, Yeah. That's right. :blush:
Escef 03-18-07, 04:39 PM	Oh, Yeah. That's right. :blush: Actually, I once had an idea for a campaign that had an area where everyone was a sorcerer. First level commoners would have half a level each of sorcerer and commoner/expert/aristocrat. (Using 3.0e optional rules.) And there would be a recuring NPC from there that hated his homeland because he had a Cha score of 9. Because of this, he was an outcast, unable to use the magic innate in the rest of his people. Somewhere along the line I wanted the NPC to pick up a Cha increasing item (or just drop a level boost into the ability). I think discovering his ability on his own would probably anger him all the more. Sadly, that campaign never got far, and the NPC never got stat'ed, nevermind seeing the light of day.
GEEKAZOID 03-18-07, 10:10 PM	There were dice. There have always been dice.Actually, not true. Prior to polyhedral dice there were the chits. I've never used that system though because my mom always told me not to play with chit. So I don't have the chits.
Solaris 03-18-07, 10:20 PM	They always had dice. The chits came with some 1979 printings of Holmes Basic due to a shortage of dice at TSR. Also see Frank Mentzer's comments here: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=185329
GEEKAZOID 03-18-07, 10:25 PM	They always had dice. The chits came with some 1979 printings of Holmes Basic due to a shortage of dice at TSR.What's up with that chit?:mad:
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-19-07, 11:34 AM	I dunno, I just remember in 1977 it was just more fun. There was less dredging through Rules and more inventive playing. It was... purer. That's largely cos in 1977 you were younger and hadn't been playing for as long. It has nothing to do with the game being better or "purer" and everything to do with it being new and wonderous for you.
Grand Theft Otto 03-19-07, 11:52 AM	Do any of the older players (or anyone who still uses the original Edition, before TSR sold out to WotC) remember how DnD was played before the introduction of the d20 system? House ruled beyond recognition.
RobbyPants 03-19-07, 12:05 PM	<snip> charts that you had to roll high or roll low with no rhyme or reason. <snip> The one thing I did like about all those arbitrary high or low rolls was that it was easier to keep players from cheating. I knew the rules hands down, so it was never too tough for me (although explaining to new players...). So it was always great when I was having someone whom I expected was cheating roll d20: Me: Roll d20! Player: What for? High or low? Me: Why do you need to know? Just roll the :censored: die! Player: *thinks: Crap! Is it a saving throw (roll high) or an ability check (roll low)???* I rolled a 19! Me: Uh oh... That was always great, because I did run into more cheating players back then, and several others claimed some dice were better at rolling high and others better at rolling low. Always kept them on their toes!
Bruunwald 03-19-07, 12:31 PM	3rd, much as I love it, is much more like a video game. Everything has a set limit (or at least, that's the goal), you simply can't make an attack that isn't in the rules or has a feat attached to it, if you don't have a particular skill then, no, you don't know that/can't do that, even though you should, by all rights. It's not that you can't, per se. It's that the mindset most adopt in order to acclimate to the rules encourages rigidity instead of flexibility. A good DM can still adjudicate some wild move you want to pull off. But the nature of the ruleset is one that you're always going to have somebody at the table who doesn't want anything to happen beyond the scope of the printed word. When 3.0 first came out, my thought was that it was sort of an attempt to quiet the rules lawyers from arguing by giving them a set rule for everything. But it backfired. Rules lawyers were already no fun in the first place, but by giving them so much "proof" to work with, the designers inadvertently rewarded some of the worst players for the worst of their behavior. The result was a LOT MORE - and I mean many times more, arguments in our game than from previous versions. Plus, there's a general reluctance to think outside the box now, even on the part of seasoned, veteran players. Why should you worry about Moves X through Z, when Moves A through C have already been so well planned-out for you?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-19-07, 12:48 PM	The biggest difference was the battlemats. We just didn't use them back then because the rules for reach and distance weren't so set. The rules for range and distance were more set. Anyone who played 1e doubtless remembers that the values for your ranges and distances actually changed based on whether you were indoors or out. And just cos you didn't use a battlemat doesn't meant they weren't used. 3rd, much as I love it, is much more like a video game. Everything has a set limit (or at least, that's the goal), you simply can't make an attack that isn't in the rules or has a feat attached to it, if you don't have a particular skill then, no, you don't know that/can't do that, even though you should, by all rights. Sorry, man, but that's simply not true. You can make attack rolls that are not covered by the rule or that donlt have a feat attached to it. One of the reasones that we have a DM is in order to resolve scenarios and situations not spelled out in the rules. As to skills, the core rules specify quite the opposite to what you suggest. The skills represent usage of a particular skill beyond the normal or everyday. The lack a ranks in a skill does not preclude someone without said skill performing basic actions. One does not need the ride skill to ride a horse, for example, one only needs it to perform tricks or actions beyond the norm while riding.
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-19-07, 02:12 PM	2E versus 3E Here's the rundown The Good -2nd edition was plain simpler. You didn't have rules for everything. It made for a feeling of discovery every time you played. You really were exploring the unknown. -Much less math. There weren't lots of errant modifiers everywhere. Most things simply didn't stack, like a monster wearing armor, so you had few things to worry about. Monster THACO and saves were drawn from a table, and that was it. You didn't have to take into account monster strength scores and the like. -Extensible Complexity: 2nd edition splatbooks (and even the core) had lots of extra optional rules in them, but you never really had to use any of them. So the game could be as complex or simple as you wanted it to be. The Bad -Total non-uniformity for no reason. Ability score tables were different. 15 dex granted a bonus, but 15 str didn't. For no apparently reason. Each class had their own XP progression. Why? Nobody knows. -Lack of Choices. If you started as a fighter, you're a fighter for life. You really had very few character choices at all once you initially selected your class. Your only real way of evolving was in your equipment and your DM handed that out at his whim. -No scaling difficulty, for anything. Hiding from a 12th level ranger was just as difficult as hiding from a commoner. It was just as easy to resist a spell from an archmage as it was to resist a spell from his apprentice. -Most classes were terrible and one dimensional. Being a rogue means you sucked in combat. Clerics were nothing more than walking first aid tents. If you weren't a fighter or a wizard you were purely support. Nobody wanted to be the sucker stuck playing the cleric.
Ikyotojin 03-19-07, 02:45 PM	(I did not play in the OD&D white box set from 1974)... I did! I did! I had it till last year and sold it on Ebay! I've still got the original dice though... those are so worn out even the 4 sider is almost round and the numbers are worn off.
Reinforcements 03-19-07, 03:09 PM	-Much less math. There weren't lots of errant modifiers everywhere. Most things simply didn't stack, like a monster wearing armor, so you had few things to worry about. Monster THACO and saves were drawn from a table, and that was it. You didn't have to take into account monster strength scores and the like. You know, you said this in a_psh's thread and I didn't understand it there either. So - what are you talking about? Strength affected attack and damage rolls in much the same way in 2nd Ed. as it does in 3rd. To illustrate: 2nd Ed: Roll d20, add modifiers (strength bonus, magic, etc.), subtract from THAC0 - AC or under hits 3rd Ed: Roll d20, add modifiers (strength bonus, magic, etc.), add BAB - AC or over hits How is that different? (Except, you know, insofar as THAC0 was very counter-intuitive.)
Escef 03-19-07, 03:17 PM	You know, you said this in a_psh's thread and I didn't understand it there either. So - what are you talking about? Strength affected attack and damage rolls in much the same way in 2nd Ed. as it does in 3rd. What he's talking about is that monsters didn't have strength scores before 3e (with the notable exceptions of ogres and giants). Seriously, go back and look at 1e or 2e monster entries. How many of them had entries for Str, Dex, Con, Wis, or Cha? Very, very few.
Reinforcements 03-19-07, 05:10 PM	What he's talking about is that monsters didn't have strength scores before 3e (with the notable exceptions of ogres and giants). Seriously, go back and look at 1e or 2e monster entries. How many of them had entries for Str, Dex, Con, Wis, or Cha? Very, very few. Madness. Just goes to show that I never DM'ed 2nd Edition. Still, the 3rd Ed. monster stat blocks conveniently provide the total attack modifiers, so I don't really see what the problem is. Not to mention that, if those scores were to change for some reason, the highly standardized nature of d20 System ability scores means it'd be relatively easy to figure out how those changes would affect things like attack modifiers.
CCS 03-19-07, 07:55 PM	[QUOTE=Thunder Dragonbane;11799862 I miss the days of sitting in my lazyboy and having my players on the couches. Now you have to have a table big enough for your players and the mat.[/QUOTE] You do? Ooops, then I guess we committed some type of modern gaming sin just the other night.... I mean; how dare we sit around the room, no minitures in sight, rolling dice on TV trays etc & just describing the action. And just to compound this folly I'm sure we'll repeat it next week.... Oh well.
CCS 03-19-07, 08:11 PM	I dunno, I just remember in 1977 it was just more fun. There was less dredging through Rules and more inventive playing. It was... purer. Though I joined a few years latter (Xmas of '80), I'll agree with you. Our current game is dominated by rules questions, digging through a stack of books 3'tall for answers/details & never ending mechanics. When I take over as DM for awhile this spring I think most of the players are going to be a bit surprised at my own aproach.....
CCS 03-19-07, 08:18 PM	The thing I missed from 2ed is the quests needed to make magic items. Now, it's just pay gold and xp and voila: magic sword. I wish they had made a rule variant where special materials and processes were required for crafting. Gee, wouldn't it be nice if that's how it REALLY worked during a game.....:) Yes, that may be what's printed on the pages, but it means next to nothing to many a good DM.
Waterhammer 03-20-07, 12:47 AM	-Extensible Complexity: 2nd edition splatbooks (and even the core) had lots of extra optional rules in them, but you never really had to use any of them. So the game could be as complex or simple as you wanted it to be. Each class had their own XP progression. Why? Nobody knows. -Extensible Complexity: This same holds true for v. 3.5. The differing XP tables? It was recognized that some classes were more powerful than others. So these required more XP to advance a level. It was meant as a balancing factor.
Reinforcements 03-20-07, 12:50 AM	-Extensible Complexity: This same holds true for v. 3.5. The differing XP tables? It was recognized that some classes were more powerful than others. So these required more XP to advance a level. It was meant as a balancing factor. I'm sure that, if nothing else, 2nd Edition D&D proved that the road to bad game design is paved with good intentions. And large, inconsistent tables.
a_psh 03-20-07, 12:55 AM	I'm sure that, if nothing else, 2nd Edition D&D proved that the road to bad game design is paved with good intentions. And large, inconsistent tables.... many of which seem to include the listing "00. DM's choice of special."
Shapedoctor 03-20-07, 01:48 AM	That's largely cos in 1977 you were younger and hadn't been playing for as long. It has nothing to do with the game being better or "purer" and everything to do with it being new and wonderous for you. I've been playing since ~1981 or so, and I think it has as much or more to do with the game as it does with my age. The earlier versions of the game were less complete and more mysterious than d20/3e. Back then the game itself felt more arcane and less game-like, although it was obviously very much a game. We had to make more of our own rules up because they didn't exist, and there was effectively no internet to ask for help from. Not only was the game very different then, but without the internet, so was the real world.
Escef 03-20-07, 08:46 AM	The differing XP tables? It was recognized that some classes were more powerful than others. So these required more XP to advance a level. It was meant as a balancing factor. Which is why the cleric had the second fastest XP table, because it was the second worse class... Oh, wait, no it wasn't.
elondir 03-20-07, 09:59 AM	Wow, OSRIC is almost exactly like I remember 1st edition. The XP tables were primarily a game balance thing (let's face it, thieves needed all the help they could), but I remember certain evil classes had faster progression to tempt players to become evil. Epsecially the defiler in Dark Sun and the black-robed wizard of high sorcery in Dragonlance. The defiler advanced almost as fast as a thief and the latter got 9th level spells at 13th level, and advanced faster than red or white robes, who got 9th level spells at 15th level. 1e dragonlance characters were capped at 18th level, though, with Raistlin being the exception. The cleric table was fast to provide incentive to play a support character instead of supermage.
Zumarai 03-20-07, 10:54 AM	I do miss segments… …Kidding.
TheCarrionCrawler 03-20-07, 12:48 PM	Actually, not true. Prior to polyhedral dice there were the chits. I've never used that system though because my mom always told me not to play with chit. So I don't have the chits. What's up with that chit?:mad: Just for the record, I thought that chit was funny. :D
a_psh 03-20-07, 07:12 PM	I do miss segments… …Kidding.That's actually a pretty good representation of what segments are like in play.
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-20-07, 09:01 PM	-Extensible Complexity: This same holds true for v. 3.5. Well not really, no. 3rd edition at its core is rather complex and many many rules are in fact core rules. 2nd edition was simple with a lot of extra rules tacked on as optional. For instance, there was no core 2E disarm option or sunder option.
Therese404 03-20-07, 09:27 PM	I recall thaco and - ac's, weapon proficencies, level limitations for non-humans, class limitations for non-humans, difference experience points for classes. Skils in % Hacking creatures with your back against the wall. Love it. I played First edt from 1980-2000. I play C&C d20 now. I may be old ish but I still recall then grand old days when we played, all week end, only having a brief meal when our parents threaten us. Cheers Therese
GEEKAZOID 03-20-07, 10:08 PM	Just for the record, I thought that chit was funny. :D:cool:
Waterhammer 03-20-07, 10:29 PM	Well not really, no. 3rd edition at its core is rather complex and many many rules are in fact core rules. 2nd edition was simple with a lot of extra rules tacked on as optional. For instance, there was no core 2E disarm option or sunder option. But in AD&D the ranseur, and spetum were capable of disarming on a roll required to hit AC 8. (That would be AC 12 in D20 system) That's disgustingly easy, but I guess it was the reward for seeing the tiny note saying this was the case. Sundering, and disarming, or similar rules may easily be removed. You only have to tell your players at the outset that this is the case. There may be grumbling... When I say AD&D I mean first addition. 2e was a huge disappointment for me. I bought the 2e PHB and that's it. 2e did have one good thing though. It was easy to adapt adventures back to AD&D.
High Octane 03-21-07, 12:19 AM	Ill tell you what I dont miss, or rather what I STILL have to deal with but think is rather ludicrous. 1st edition: Rounds were a minute. Although you can explain most aspects of the game, you cant explain why it took a full minute to draw a sword or move what was it, 60 feet? 120 feet at most? Whats more, the whole tables thing was a pain in the ass. Am I wrong or didnt lightning bolt in 2nd edition bounce off walls? It does when I play Baldurs Gate which says its in the style of 2nd edition. Makes it the most worthless spell in the game since you always end up taking all the damage yourself.
Waterhammer 03-21-07, 12:57 AM	Ill tell you what I dont miss, or rather what I STILL have to deal with but think is rather ludicrous. 1st edition: Rounds were a minute. Although you can explain most aspects of the game, you cant explain why it took a full minute to draw a sword or move what was it, 60 feet? 120 feet at most? Whats more, the whole tables thing was a pain in the ass. Am I wrong or didnt lightning bolt in 2nd edition bounce off walls? It does when I play Baldurs Gate which says its in the style of 2nd edition. Makes it the most worthless spell in the game since you always end up taking all the damage yourself. Yup. That's right, a lightning bolt could rebound straight back at you. :evillaugh Yup. Tables were a pain. I don't think the rules ever said it took a full round to draw a weapon. (Maybe in 2e. If so, one more reason to hate that version.) I do agree that the one minute/round was rather silly.
Vrykolas2k 03-21-07, 01:18 AM	Let's see...... I started role-playing back in 1980, pretty young... 1st edition AD&D, played a lawful neutral half-orc assassin, which was a base character. Neat stuff came out, nothing too powerful, and I switched to a neutral drow assassin after awhile; he had troubles interacting with most surface-dwellers, which was fun to role-play. No-one could make unbalanced characters, really. 2nd edition came out, things... changed. After awhile, it became sort of a race to figure out who could make the most powerful character... I played a neutral half-drow fighter/ mage, then a lawful neutral ogre-mage fighter; both had problems in "civilized" areas, again it was fun to role-play. As things progressed, more montiness occured in the rule-books. 3rd edition came out. Suddenly, the word "builds" replaced "characters". People no longer seemed to care about if a character was fun or challenging to play. Players can be a half-anything. Dragons became as fecund as orcs. Races which were rare as PCs at one time became more common, or completely unplayable except for insanely high levels. Hmmm... The systems stayed pretty well the same for many years, and worked fine, really. I like many things about 3.5, but... it isn't the same, either in feel or game balance. I like 1st edition the best. It seems TSR, back then, cared more about the customers than the money. In 2nd edition, they started caring more about the money and now... D&D is more of a cash cow than it ever was before.
Escef 03-21-07, 02:37 AM	1st edition AD&D... No-one could make unbalanced characters, really. How much would you like to wager on that?
khyron1144 03-21-07, 02:47 AM	How much would you like to wager on that? I have nothing to wager, so I'll put it all on the line. I think that once you take all the balancing factors into account, including the minimum numbers needed to qualify for races and classes, the demihuman level limits, the weapon selection rules, the default ability score generation method, and the various XP tables, a pretty good sort of balance is achieved. If you're playing a campaign that can take a fighter from first to ninth level, at first level an Unearthed Arcana barbarian or cavalier looks better, but a player has to roll halfway decently to even get the minimum ability scores for that class. If the party has a wizard or cleric in it, the barbarian can't be taken along at all at those levels. In order to start play as a first level cavalier, the player has to roll high on the social status tables or get special DM permission. And then ther's how much faster a plain fighter advances than the cavalier or especially barbarian.
Escef 03-21-07, 02:56 AM	I think... See, there's your problem. You know everytime you do that all you do is get yourself in trouble. :P
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-21-07, 10:14 AM	1st edition AD&D... No-one could make unbalanced characters, really. :rofl: Stop! You're killing me! :rofl:
celtredleg 03-21-07, 10:31 AM	Ill tell you what I dont miss, or rather what I STILL have to deal with but think is rather ludicrous. 1st edition: Rounds were a minute. Although you can explain most aspects of the game, you cant explain why it took a full minute to draw a sword or move what was it, 60 feet? 120 feet at most? Whats more, the whole tables thing was a pain in the ass. Am I wrong or didnt lightning bolt in 2nd edition bounce off walls? It does when I play Baldurs Gate which says its in the style of 2nd edition. Makes it the most worthless spell in the game since you always end up taking all the damage yourself. But it didnt have to start at your fingertips. And you could bank it like a poolball. And it you placed it right, you could bounce it back through the same enemy twice. As a player, it was awesome if you where good with it. As a DM, it was way overpowered. I also remeber fireballs that had to expand to thier full size, so if you dropped one into to small a space, it came back out into the hall with you. And I dont even know if that was how it was supposed to be. It wasnt a house rule, just how our feverish younger minds understood them.
celtredleg 03-21-07, 10:36 AM	I havent noticed anybody mentioning geting XP for treasure found?? Often that was the main source of XP, rather than the likk itself. I always hated that, because it could be so veriable depending in how hot the treasure dice where. Especialy the gem table, where one could go up or down multiple times. I dont even remeber which book that was in, must have scarred me to much.
Seldriss 03-21-07, 10:36 AM	I do miss segments…/…Kidding. I really do. That's why I am still using them. Same for Weapon Factors and Casting Time for Initiative. No, this doesn't make the game more complicated, on the contrary, it makes the time flow easier to manage.
Vrykolas2k 03-21-07, 10:49 AM	:rofl: Stop! You're killing me! :rofl: Enlighten me, then; I played for YEARS and it didn't happen.
Zumarai 03-21-07, 10:54 AM	I really do. That's why I am still using them. Same for Weapon Factors and Casting Time for Initiative. No, this doesn't make the game more complicated, on the contrary, it makes the time flow easier to manage. Wow, you brought up two of the other aspects of the game I loathed – weapon speed factors and casting times for spells. But right on, if it makes your game flow smoother etc. You have definitely piqued my curiosity. I would love to sit in on one of your sessions and see how using these older rules pans out.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-21-07, 11:06 AM	Enlighten me, then; I played for YEARS and it didn't happen. Okay; you are wrong. Consider yourself enlightened. If you had said "I personally never saw anyone make an unbalanced 1e character" then you'd have a point, but you said "No-one could make unbalanced characters" which is an entirely different animal altogether. I've know people who could make an unbalanced character in Monopoly.
Zumarai 03-21-07, 11:15 AM	I've know people who could make an unbalanced character in Monopoly. Only if you were the "Car".
Seeker95 03-21-07, 11:23 AM	Same for Weapon Factors and Casting Time for Initiative.Casting Time as an initiative factor I could do without. But Weapon Speed Modifier is something I think could have a place in determining initiative order today. Thanks for reminding me. I think I will pull out my old books and see what can be derived for a new modifier table. If nothing else, it will make the weapon choice include a bit more thought than "One-hand or two? And how much damage can I do?"
Kursk 03-21-07, 11:45 AM	Okay; you are wrong. Consider yourself enlightened.Monopoly. Okay. Examples...
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-21-07, 11:51 AM	Okay. Examples... Sorry, I thought it was obvious I was being ironical when I mentioned Monopoly. And anyone who thinks I am likely to recall in any explicit detail examples of other peoples' D&D PCs from 20+ years ago is going to be sorely disappointed.
Kursk 03-21-07, 12:03 PM	Sorry, I thought it was obvious I was being ironical when I mentioned Monopoly. And anyone who thinks I am likely to recall in any explicit detail examples of other peoples' D&D PCs from 20+ years ago is going to be sorely disappointed. I don't remember any unbalanced characters from 1st Ed unless it was from a DM giving out overpowering junk, a la Monty Haul. It was very hard to do unless it was as I just laid out.
Seldriss 03-21-07, 12:19 PM	Well, honestly, things started to get unbalanced in AD&D 1st edition when the Unearthed Arcana came out, with the Barbarian, the Cavalier and the Acrobat...
Kursk 03-21-07, 12:37 PM	Well, honestly, things started to get unbalanced in AD&D 1st edition when the Unearthed Arcana came out, with the Barbarian, the Cavalier and the Acrobat... You're right. Once you moved from the "core" 1st Ed problems started. Similar to but many magnitudes less than 3.x. Before that it wasn't really that possible. UA was kinda like a 1.5 Ed on its way to 2nd.
Zumarai 03-21-07, 12:41 PM	Well, honestly, things started to get unbalanced in AD&D 1st edition when the Unearthed Arcana came out, with the Barbarian, the Cavalier and the Acrobat... And remember that out of control ability score generation table for humans? Fighter: 9d6 drop the lowest six etc.
Seldriss 03-21-07, 12:52 PM	Hehehe :D That's why i appreciate so much character points creation. It avoids dozen of frustrating dice rolls columns... I had so many players wasting their time on full sheets of paper, covered with numbers, until i tell them to just put the stats as they see the character ;) This being said, if a player wants to create his character in the old style way, he is more than welcome to do so...
Zumarai 03-21-07, 12:56 PM	Hehehe :D That's why i appreciate so much character points creation. Me too. I am definitely a Point Buy convert.
Tzor 03-21-07, 03:04 PM	I first started playing AD&D in 1980. It is really hard to describe AD&D back then because it was so radically different in a number of ways. You know those funny screens DMS would have in front of them. You know why they were invented? Not to hide the DM but because there were simply too many tables the DM needed in front of him. Each class had thier own to hit table, and then the monsters had their own to hit table. Then there were the saving throw tables. Then there were the weapon vs armor class tables, the speed factor tables and so on and so forth. EVERYTHING was a table. Combat, if you used all the rules was very complex. There were facing rules (square for indoors and hex for outdoors) weapon vs armor type and so forth and the only real combat move you could do was "roll to hit." Then there was the d% for unarmed combat and the segmnt psionic rules. (Most people just didn't use these options ... made it simplier.) These were the rules straight out of the book. No one used these rules perfectly. Role Master's Arms Law, and especially the critical hit tables constantly influenced AD&D play were I played. (R.P.I. if you must know.) No skills, no feats. Life was grand. Honest.
Kursk 03-21-07, 03:17 PM	I first started playing AD&D in 1980. It is really hard to describe AD&D back then because it was so radically different in a number of ways. You know those funny screens DMS would have in front of them. You know why they were invented? Not to hide the DM but because there were simply too many tables the DM needed in front of him. And now I use the DM screen from systemreferencedocuments.org as there are so many tables with combat rules... The more it changes the more it stays the same. ;)
ENHenry 03-21-07, 03:39 PM	Well, honestly, things started to get unbalanced in AD&D 1st edition when the Unearthed Arcana came out, with the Barbarian, the Cavalier and the Acrobat... Even before that, I always felt that Multi-classed demi-humans were unbalanced, as well. Why? Because of the nature in which the game was played by the majority of players at the time. Level limits are irrelevant if most campaigns stopped at between 6th and 9th level; further, with an exponential levelling system, multi-classed characters were at most 1 to 2 levels behind single-classed characters, usually just one level, meaning that they had twice the skill-sets of their fellow human single-classers, topped off with the bonuses for being a demi-human.
Vrykolas2k 03-21-07, 04:46 PM	Apologies, no offense was intended. I was actually going for dry sardonicism, a bit of wordplay based off your "Enlighten me, then" comment. No need for insults. As ENHenry points out, multi-classing was hugely unbalanced. There was essentially no reason not to multiclass if you could. Coupled with the already numerous benefits of being a demi-human race - especially elves - and the unbalance is claar. Other than the fact you're still dumping XP into a class you're no longer advancing in, sure... As for the Unearthed Arcana classes, they could be unbalanced... but I only knew a total of seven people who ever rolled well enough on 3d6 to ever play them (or a Paladin or Bard, included... or some of the multi-class combos).
Kursk 03-21-07, 04:55 PM	Apologies, no offense was intended. I was actually going for dry sardonicism, a bit of wordplay based off your "Enlighten me, then" comment. No need for insults. As ENHenry points out, multi-classing was hugely unbalanced. There was essentially no reason not to multiclass if you could. Coupled with the already numerous benefits of being a demi-human race - especially elves - and the unbalance is claar. Yes, if you nerfed the level cap rules then it was unbalanced. If you played by the rules, no.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-21-07, 05:37 PM	Yes, if you nerfed the level cap rules then it was unbalanced. If you played by the rules, no. Not really. We never had a single campaign go on long enough with a persistent group of PCs for it to become and issue (much to my chagrin).
khyron1144 03-21-07, 05:52 PM	I think that once you take all the balancing factors into account, including the minimum numbers needed to qualify for races and classes, the demihuman level limits, the weapon selection rules, the default ability score generation method, and the various XP tables, a pretty good sort of balance is achieved. If you're playing a campaign that can take a fighter from first to ninth level, at first level an Unearthed Arcana barbarian or cavalier looks better, but a player has to roll halfway decently to even get the minimum ability scores for those classes. If the party has a wizard or cleric in it, the barbarian can't be taken along at all at those levels. In order to start play as a first level cavalier, the player has to roll high on the social status tables or get special DM permission. And then there's how much faster a plain fighter advances than the cavalier or especially barbarian. I said that last page and no one who believes 1e has a strong tendency towards unbalance has tried to seriously debunk it. I got one jokeresponse that I thought was clever, but no one has said you are wrong because...
Kursk 03-21-07, 05:59 PM	I said that last page and no one who believes 1e has a strong tendency towards unbalance has tried to seriously debunk it. I got one jokeresponse that I thought was clever, but no one has said you are wrong because... because... it can't seriously be debunked... Not when compared to 3.5.
High Octane 03-21-07, 06:37 PM	Yes, if you nerfed the level cap rules then it was unbalanced. If you played by the rules, no.Heh. Want unbalanced? Try the multiclass. Have an Elf be a multiclass magic-user fighter and you have a guy who will be at worst 1 level behind everyone else and have the best saving throws of either class, the low Thaco of the fighter, the extra weapon proficiencies, many more hit points than the average magic-user and basically full magic progression. All he was is 1 level behind. Thats it. Because back then, to make 1 level, you had to double your XP total. Anyway, ifyou played Gygax style, you lost characters quick enough that your race was fluid for whatever is best at the time.
Kursk 03-21-07, 07:25 PM	Heh. Want unbalanced? Try the multiclass. Have an Elf be a multiclass magic-user fighter and you have a guy who will be at worst 1 level behind everyone else and have the best saving throws of either class, the low Thaco of the fighter, the extra weapon proficiencies, many more hit points than the average magic-user and basically full magic progression. All he was is 1 level behind. Thats it. Because back then, to make 1 level, you had to double your XP total. You took your XP and divided it between your classes. So, that moderated your level. Also, that Fighter/Mage had armor problems...
Vrykolas2k 03-22-07, 01:30 AM	Heh. Want unbalanced? Try the multiclass. Have an Elf be a multiclass magic-user fighter and you have a guy who will be at worst 1 level behind everyone else and have the best saving throws of either class, the low Thaco of the fighter, the extra weapon proficiencies, many more hit points than the average magic-user and basically full magic progression. All he was is 1 level behind. Thats it. Because back then, to make 1 level, you had to double your XP total. Anyway, ifyou played Gygax style, you lost characters quick enough that your race was fluid for whatever is best at the time. You also had to continue dumping XP into a class which no longer advanced... that actually lowered your advancement in the other class(es), which means you might be SEVERAL lavels below the other party members.
Seeker95 03-22-07, 09:12 AM	which means you might be SEVERAL levels below the other party members.When did your 2e campaign advance far enough that the difference could be several? After 9th level, "advancement" was not exactly much of an advance.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-22-07, 09:21 AM	I said that last page and no one who believes 1e has a strong tendency towards unbalance has tried to seriously debunk it. When in the course of this discussion did the opinion that "1e is not impossible to unbalance" somehow morph into "1e has a strong tendency towards unbalance?" :confused:
Vrykolas2k 03-22-07, 11:17 AM	When did your 2e campaign advance far enough that the difference could be several? After 9th level, "advancement" was not exactly much of an advance. I'm mostly talking about 1st ed, but I have seen a few campaigns in both 1st & 2nd editions which ran longer than achieving 9th level.
khyron1144 03-22-07, 11:58 AM	When in the course of this discussion did the opinion that "1e is not impossible to unbalance" somehow morph into "1e has a strong tendency towards unbalance?" :confused: I see what you are saying. Sorry I misinterpreted it. I thought you were saying that 3e does game balance way better, not that no game is immune to imbalance. Forgiveness please.
elondir 03-22-07, 01:26 PM	I recently did an analysis of AD&D multiclassing. You're one level behind most of the time (sometimes no levels behind, and sometimes 2 levels behind, but only for brief periods on both counts). After the XP table switches to linear, the gaps start. And how. For every level you get, you become another level behind. When you had enough XP for 20th level single classed, you were actually 14th level - 6 levels behind. Triple-classers were 11 levels behind in each class. And it just got worse from there. BTW, my favorite race class was the half-elf fighter/mage/thief. Moderate strength, high INT, and decent DEX were necessary, but even with the three classes it too was only one level behind until 9th level, and thief levels rise fast. I have yet to see a good version of it for 3.5. Also, I changed mystic theurge to be available at 3rd level so you're only one caster level behind in each class (thus satisfying the LA+1 of the gestalt cleric/wizard, which is closer to an AD&D cleric/mage). The epic MT is already scaled perfectly for this method, and MT levels count towards turning undead and familiars. I grant a bonus item creation or metamagic feat at 3rd level and every 5 after, and give them d6 hit dice (the average of alternating classes). They are still subject to ASF in armor. Arcane Trickster has the same problem as MT. I made it available at 3rd level. As a side note, I don't mind if a player can cast 9th level spells in both classes. He still has to choose which action to take.
High Octane 03-22-07, 02:32 PM	You also had to continue dumping XP into a class which no longer advanced... that actually lowered your advancement in the other class(es), which means you might be SEVERAL lavels below the other party members. You went even between the classes. The way level progression worked, you had to normally double your XP total in order to gain another level. Most classes also had a similar XP progression, deviation only around 25%, and that didnt change in relative size since they all had to double their XP per level. Thieves were a notable exception, but after they hit level 2, they had the same total XP requirement (so they were 1 level above everybody with the same XP usually.) In short, you could have a Magic User 5/Fighter 5 or a Magic User 5/Thief 6 for the same amount of XP as a Magic User 6. (Give or take 10%) At least thats how I remember it last. I could be off. But my favorite issue with 1st edition has to be hold person. Affected 3 people, or 2 with a -1 penalty on the targets saving throw, or 1 with a -2. Thats 75% of a normal adventuring party. OF ANY LEVEL.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-22-07, 02:46 PM	You also had to continue dumping XP into a class which no longer advanced... that actually lowered your advancement in the other class(es), which means you might be SEVERAL lavels below the other party members. It has been a while, but the way I recall it you could only advance one class at a time, and if you used ony of you class features from the other class you got no XP. So fi you were advancing you fighter level and decided you needed to cast a magic missile spell from your MU side you got no XP for the encoutner. Like I said, it has been a while, I could be way off on that one.
Kursk 03-22-07, 02:49 PM	It has been a while, but the way I recall it you could only advance one class at a time, and if you used ony of you class features from the other class you got no XP. So fi you were advancing you fighter level and decided you needed to cast a magic missile spell from your MU side you got no XP for the encoutner. Like I said, it has been a while, I could be way off on that one. I remember that rule but it may have been for Dual Class characters rather than Multi-Class characters.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-22-07, 02:57 PM	I remember that rule but it may have been for Dual Class characters rather than Multi-Class characters. Ah yes, the DC/MC divide. What a good idea that was. :rolleyes: No matter what, no one will ever be able to convince me that a game with save-or-die traps being commonplace was balanced! ;)
Kursk 03-22-07, 02:59 PM	Ah yes, the DC/MC divide. What a good idea that was. :rolleyes: No matter what, no one will ever be able to convince me that a game with save-or-die traps being commonplace was balanced! ;) Yes, in some of published modules PC attrition was a tad high... :D
Yakman 03-22-07, 05:34 PM	THAC0 was brutal. But if you learned the system and kept using it, the calculations came as second nature. I could probably still do them if I got back into the groove. The round-by-round initiative rolling was a major pain in the ass. My groups avoided it by not doing it. The dual-class v. multi-class v. single-class had to be the most complicated system... elves could dual-class in some things, while dwarves could dual-class in others, etc., etc.. Major pain in the ass. The new class system is a jillion times better, although I think that magic is over powered now, especially with the Sorceror class. The general production values, I believe, have increased under WotC although there were a number of modules TSR released that were absolutely superb. The box sets in particular were quite nice. The old monstrous manuals are 100% better--you could just pull out sheets and place them in a game binder rather than having to go through a number of books. I thought the AD&D system was over-complicated, and the enormous number of rules--particularly those relating to combat and learning weapons and such really sucked. So mostly, we played regular D&D, using the best product that ever came out of TSR--the hardbacked, Rules Cyclopedia (which unfortunately was bound poorly and fell out of binding after about a month)
iam_bkee 03-22-07, 08:45 PM	Each edition of DnD has been -way- better than the previous. I was so incredibly happy when 2nd came out. About the only thing I remember about 1st was always having a bunch of charts always open. Writing out your weapon bonuses vs each AC was retarded. After a few months of 2nd ed, I had to start fixing things (THAC0 most notably). Multi-classed characters never quite worked right. They were either too powerfull or too weak. We tolerated it, because fixing it was too much work. That's why... I was so incredibly happy when 3rd came out. When 3.5 was on the way, I initially wasn't convinced we need to buy into it. I very cautiously got a book, dug into the delta, and decided that these were improvements that we wanted to incorporate. 3.5 is such a better game than the previous versions. I am baffled by the comments like "3x sucks because you HAVE to use a battle mat." You can sit back in the comfy chair and role play, you just have to be consistent with how you do AOOs and character position like flankning. The one thing that is beginning to bring me down about DnD is, my group is a lot more casual about their playing habbits these days. Some are too distracted for a tactical battle. We're getting to be high level (15-17) and even well run fights take a long time to play out, too long for some attention spans when you occationally get interrupted by your kids.
Geoste 03-23-07, 07:27 AM	You don't need a battlemat to play 3.5e D&D. Bull. If you do not use the mat then it's all rather arbitrary. The arbitrariness is what so many players whine about on these boards in respect to earlier editions of AD&D. Players don't need to see the battlemat if you can describe the action well enough, and you yourself don't need one if you can just keep track of everything in your head. But what about keeping it straight in other player's heads? Especially when they have gotten used to playing with minis to do the thinking and imagining for them? I do not have the luxury of having old time consistent players that i knew from my high school days or such, and so the players I do have came from other groups who played differently. I am glad your players can adjust to your playing style, but I am very sure mine cannot. If I had $1 for each and everytime a player whined about using miniatures and battlemat.... and yes, I am more than willing to describe the action in detail without the need to draw it out on graph paper or other such mat/mini replacement. The miniatures based play has more or less destroyed that for most players I know.
Geoste 03-23-07, 07:30 AM	What's the deal with reviling THAC0? Honestly, it was far, far faster than looking up your "To Hit" number in those blasted tables in the DMG. A bit of simple math - subtract your opponent's AC from your THAC0 - and there ya go! It followed EXACTLY the same progression as the DMG tables, just in a convenient ready-to-eat package. Yeah, THAC0 never slowed down play for me, and it was EASY. Those people who complain about THAC0? I could swear I saw something on apes where animal scientists trained them to do simple additive math... comparatively THAC0 complainers make those apes look very smart, indeed.
Zumarai 03-23-07, 07:35 AM	Each edition of DnD has been -way- better than the previous. I was so incredibly happy when 2nd came out. 3rd edition is what 2nd edition should have been. …What is it they say about the unwanted middle child (with red hair)?
Escef 03-23-07, 07:46 AM	Yeah, THAC0 never slowed down play for me, and it was EASY. Those people who complain about THAC0? I could swear I saw something on apes where animal scientists trained them to do simple additive math... comparatively THAC0 complainers make those apes look very smart, indeed. Maybe you haven't read the rest of the thread, but didn't we already have the arguement that calling people that couldn't wrap their minds around THAC0 names is ever so slightly a bad thing? I've taken Calculus, does that give me the right to say that people that don't understand parabulas and quandratic equations are dumber than chimps? (Here's a hint: No.) That would be like me saying that anyone who can't play 3e without a battlemat is a retard. Like, for example, you. Have I made this claim? No. Nor do I intend to (despite the implication). If the mat makes keeping track of battle easier for you and your players (it often does for me as well, though sometimes I don't bother with it) that's awesome, you've found a great tool for the game.
Geoste 03-23-07, 07:54 AM	I've taken Calculus, does that give me the right to say that people that don't understand parabulas and quandratic equations are dumber than chimps? (Here's a hint: No.) Comparing Calculus to... what... grade five math? Are you seriously going to take that position or use that as an example? I'll call lazy as such and stupid as such. Why mince words? That would be like me saying that anyone who can't play 3e without a battlemat is a retard. Like, for example, you. Have I made this claim? No. Nor do I intend to (despite the implication). If the mat makes keeping track of battle easier for you and your players (it often does for me as well, though sometimes I don't bother with it) that's awesome, you've found a great tool for the game. Oh, I can play it without a mat. I never claimed that for myself. I claimed it for other players I have had the "pleasure" of playing with. Read more carefully.
Ezell Pike 03-23-07, 10:22 AM	Fighters were much better. AoO's weren't so prevalent. Characters usually moved and attacked or cast a spell or did some other minor thing like retrieve a scroll or potion or activated a magic item such as a wand. In d20 systems they move 5 feet, use two feats (One of which they must explain) cast a spell as a free action, cast another spell as a standard action, calculate dc's for individual spells, make one or more AoO's, and then use an immediate action to cast another spell. To sum up my opinion of improvements d20 has over 2e. Initiative is no longer 4 pages out of the PHB, it's much easier now. Skills are more flexible than proficiencies. Class selection is a little less stringent. Feats, though not all good or even mostly good add more flexiblitity. Saving throws are much easier to remember and use even if the DC's part of the mechanic could use some serious fine tuning. That's about it. I will refrain from sharing all of my grievances with d20 with the exception of the one I feel most strongly about. All in all d20 is slower in combat than 2e. That is the main problem I have with it.
Rump_Wrangler 03-23-07, 10:30 AM	Skills are more flexible than proficiencies. These still need work, not the way they are used, but the way they are chosen/allocated, IMO.
Geoste 03-23-07, 10:39 AM	To sum up my opinion of improvements d20 has over 2e. Initiative is no longer 4 pages out of the PHB, it's much easier now. Skills are more flexible than proficiencies. Class selection is a little less stringent. Feats, though not all good or even mostly good add more flexiblitity. Saving throws are much easier to remember and use even if the DC's part of the mechanic could use some serious fine tuning. (...) All in all d20 is slower in combat than 2e. That is the main problem I have with it. All of which I agree with, even over 1E AD&D. What I found i had to do with 3E was to minimize the metagaming or "gamy" aspects. I turned to rolling AC bonus + d20 instead of base 10 vs. each incoming attack. It allows for players never really guessing what the monster's AC was. It really works. The predicability factor was also an issue I had with 1E and 2E. Fighters, without all their magical gear, were pretty much capable of the same. You can't say that with 3E, what with all the Feats and all that. I, too, was one of those people who bought the 3E PHB when it first came out in 2000 and said, "Wow! Easier to learn and a lot of improvements". Now, with all the new add on sourcebooks and all, I can't help but to look back with a sense of nostalgia. However, even I know that we tend to only recall the good aspects, not the bad. If I really try to recall, I can remember all the house rules I used to have for AD&D. That's not the point, you insufferable jerks. Now that is an insult! Well done, lad! I'm good at math, calculus and everything, and I hated THAC0. Why? Because it's stupid and counter-intuitive. It never caused my any big problems playing the game, but I can easily recognize that it's a badly designed rule. And yes, when combined with the rest of 2nd Edition's ill-conceived rules, there were times when I had to pull up and go, "Wait, what am I rolling now? Do I want high or low?" And that's bad. Yes, it was counter-intuitive, but at the time there was nothing much better, was there? Compared to now that is. It seems that there is indeed an opposite of nostalgia, where something from the past can be viewed with animosity or even hate. At the time when 2E was the only current version of AD&D, THAC0 was not a big deal. After all, you played with it, right? And those other rules from AD&D that confused you... you played with those, right? I am just merely placing things in the perspective they ought to be seen in. Yes, there were other RPGs when 2E was around, but chances are very good that you weren't using those rules to play AD&D, right? You still played AD&D, yes? That chances are good that you continued to do play AD&D? As insufferable as that may sound, it may also be true.
Escef 03-23-07, 10:52 AM	They might actually be able to spell "parabola" and "quadratic", however. It's been 13 years. I wasn't sure of the spelling of parabola, and was in a rush, so I didn't bother spellchecking it. How that "n" made it into quadratic, however, is beyond me. :confused:
Roxlimn 03-23-07, 10:56 AM	Geoste: Bull. If you do not use the mat then it's all rather arbitrary. The arbitrariness is what so many players whine about on these boards in respect to earlier editions of AD&D. No. It's not. You just have to keep a 2d map in your head as to where everybody is, and it's easier to do that with a grid than with inches. As long as you know enough to answer a player's question, you don't need a battlemat to play. But what about keeping it straight in other player's heads? Especially when they have gotten used to playing with minis to do the thinking and imagining for them? I do not have the luxury of having old time consistent players that i knew from my high school days or such, and so the players I do have came from other groups who played differently. I am glad your players can adjust to your playing style, but I am very sure mine cannot. They can ask whatever positioning questions they want. I just tell them where they're going in relation to landmarks that are important for them. "I want to flank X guy." "You're 30 feet away from flanking him on your left. If you do that, you'll get an AoO since he's got 10 foot reach." "What about the right side?" "Can't do that. You'll have to tumble through Ogre2 who's next to him on HIS left (your right) and I doubt you want to do that." Is that really so bad? When you only have to track 8 or so combatants, it's not such a huge deal. In fact, you sort of have to be able to do this anyway even with a battlemat, if you want to able to deal with flight combat.
Rump_Wrangler 03-23-07, 11:02 AM	"I want to flank X guy." "You're 30 feet away from flanking him on your left. If you do that, you'll get an AoO since he's got 10 foot reach." "What about the right side?" "Can't do that. You'll have to tumble through Ogre2 who's next to him on HIS left (your right) and I doubt you want to do that." Is that really so bad? For my group it would be.
Rump_Wrangler 03-23-07, 11:04 AM	When you only have to track 8 or so combatants, it's not such a huge deal. In fact, you sort of have to be able to do this anyway even with a battlemat, if you want to able to deal with flight combat. How so?
Roxlimn 03-23-07, 11:17 AM	Battlemats don't track movement in the third dimension, so you need to keep track of that 2D element by some other means. If you can simulate elevations in your heads, then going from 1D imagination to 2D imagination can't be that far off.
Tzor 03-23-07, 11:45 AM	I said that last page and no one who believes 1e has a strong tendency towards unbalance has tried to seriously debunk it. Well it all depends on how you define "balance." On the average classes blanaced, but not at any one given level. It's been over 20 years since I've seen the arguments but one could argue that the 1E monk was well under par at lower levels and well over par at higher levels. Then there is the question of whether level is an appropriate balance notion to begin with since each class leveled at different rates. So if a class has a different leveling rate than another you can't really compare level X to level X. Throw in UA and I'm not sure what to say. I'm pretty sure that we thought UA unbalaned at the time, but I didn't really see that much of UA to get a good opinion either way. Then again, nothing was as unbalanced as the Dragon's Anti-Paladin, the height of 1E unbalance.
Vrykolas2k 03-23-07, 11:50 AM	Maybe you haven't read the rest of the thread, but didn't we already have the arguement that calling people that couldn't wrap their minds around THAC0 names is ever so slightly a bad thing? I've taken Calculus, does that give me the right to say that people that don't understand parabulas and quandratic equations are dumber than chimps? (Here's a hint: No.) That would be like me saying that anyone who can't play 3e without a battlemat is a retard. Like, for example, you. Have I made this claim? No. Nor do I intend to (despite the implication). If the mat makes keeping track of battle easier for you and your players (it often does for me as well, though sometimes I don't bother with it) that's awesome, you've found a great tool for the game. I see the poster's point, though... I am discalculic, and I started playing when I was eight; I totally understood THAC0. Most of the time we didn't even bother with miniatures (although I did buy some from Granadier Models, and we used those occasionally).
Stormonu 03-23-07, 11:50 AM	Well, I'd have to say 1E barbarians are unbalanced from the start. A couple of magic items (that they "didn't know were magic") would be all that would take to unbalance them. Ability score limitations are pretty worthless; I knew plenty of DMs who, if the player really wanted to play a class, would boost ability scores up to the minimum needed to let you play the class - or just ignored the ability score requirements along with level caps. Elf Fighter/Magic-User/Thief is probably the most ungodly combo I remember from 1E. With a half-way decent spell list, that creature is a one-man wrecking crew. Psionics were absolutely outrageous - if I remember correctly, you could have a 20th-level party-killing psionicist who was 1st level. Assassins could be pretty heinous with their instant death attack, but a Monk with a pet rust monster (to turn everyone's AC to 10 and then kill them with his unarmed attacks) is pretty bad too. Most of 1E's unbalancing factors came in magic items. Get a couple magic items and you could be quite unstoppable. And with artifacts and relics on the random item tables, there was always the recipe for disaster with novice DMs (which we all were at one time or another). From what I've gone through, each edition that has come out has been better than the last, though I wouldn't mind if they went the Iron Heroes route where it's more about what the character can do than what his magic items allow him to do (i.e., less dependance on magic items).
HerbalTea 03-23-07, 12:01 PM	Well, dice were used back then as well. I had as much fun playing then as I do now. I look at like playing D&D and say, Shadowrun. You're just using different engines to achieve the same end result. An enjoyable evening with your friends. I personally preferred it then. Nothing was better than sitting around the table with my friends having a good old game of DnD (after watching a few episodes of Knightmare) without having to traverse the PHB or DMG every 4 seconds for a rules dispute. Mage: "I want to become a God" Me: "Ok, how do you aim to do this?" Mage: "Mehh, I'll find a way, I'll look for various things to help me (whilst ignoring 80% of the rules)" Me: "Ok, at the moment you are in a dark and foreboding passageway in the halls of....etc" Balance? bugger balance. It doesnt take a genius to work out that you dont give a 1st level character a ring of infinite wishes and it doesnt take a genius to work out that the players and you both want to have a powerful, dragon-encountering, enjoyable campaign.
Rump_Wrangler 03-23-07, 12:03 PM	Battlemats don't track movement in the third dimension, so you need to keep track of that 2D element by some other means. We use a die to represent elevation. If the creature is 10 squares (50 ft.) up in the air, we roll the die over to a 10 and keep it next to whatever it is we're using to represent said creature.
Rump_Wrangler 03-23-07, 12:07 PM	From what I've gone through, each edition that has come out has been better than the last, though I wouldn't mind if they went the Iron Heroes route where it's more about what the character can do than what his magic items allow him to do (i.e., less dependance on magic items). Me too.
High Octane 03-23-07, 12:12 PM	And if you're talking about THAC0, it's hardly calculus. It's math that most people are completely comfortable with by age eight. People who didn't ride the short bus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_bus) to school, anyway. Actually we usually use a chart. Its just weird to have subtractions as bonuses. It was such that the strength bonus was listed as +1 then you had to stop and remind yourself to subtract. Why did you feel it necessary to say it like that?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-23-07, 12:54 PM	We use a die to represent elevation. If the creature is 10 squares (50 ft.) up in the air, we roll the die over to a 10 and keep it next to whatever it is we're using to represent said creature. We use poker chips. The cheap ones you get from dollar stores are perfect: they are generally smaller, a lot cheaper, and many have ridges around the edge so they "lock" together when stacked. White chips for 1 square (5'), blue for 4 squares (20'), and red for 20 squares (100') so you can tell at a quick glance how far up they are. Quick, easy, cheap and simple.
High Octane 03-23-07, 12:57 PM	We use poker chips. We've used a 2 liter of Mountain Dew (guy was in a tree). Its not just for wiping out BBEGs and problem PCs anymore. Edit: I to We, credit where credit is due.
Roxlimn 03-23-07, 02:31 PM	Great. Once you're down to the poker chips, it's usually easy to just omit them altogether and merely remember elevation by rote. I can do rote 2D with no references, but I've managed to get my players to do the same. It's not all that different from 2e combat, really.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-23-07, 02:41 PM	Great. Once you're down to the poker chips, it's usually easy to just omit them altogether and merely remember elevation by rote. I can do rote 2D with no references, but I've managed to get my players to do the same. It's not all that different from 2e combat, really. Sorry, what? I was speaking specifically of using them with miniatures and a battlemap, not without. The idea is that you stack the chips under the miniature to indicate elevation.
Tzor 03-23-07, 02:57 PM	When I was going through the halls last Gen Con there was a table with a WWI biplane combat game. They put the mini planes on those retractable pointer things that used to form antennas for hand held radios. They had the 3D gaming down pat.
Qwicksilver 03-23-07, 05:18 PM	I have only ever played 3e, but I do understand a certain "less rules= more creativity" thing. Yes, 3rd edition may have put in writing what 20 years of house rules had to come up with, but I think there can be a lot of fun in coming up with the house rules. When things are all written out and set in stone, I feel there is less opportunity for a person to feel clever or inventive when he tries to think outside of the box. In a sense, it's a good thing to have some ambiguity about the rules, if you have a DM who knows that he should reward attempts to be creative and clever. In another sense, there may be arguments about "you should have ruled this way" or whatever, that's if you don't have a good understanding with the DM. There is, and always will be, more opportunity for a player in D&D to be creative than in a video game just because he's interacting with sentient human beings. That's what I like about D&D as opposed to video games. Do more rules and regulations about battle tactics and the way spells work and all that reduce the possibility for being creative, yes for those who want to come up with something from nothing, and no for those who need some prompts (ie. rules, abilities, mechanics). But it also reduces the amount of possibility for outright abuse of the game, and your fellow players/DM.
Geoste 03-26-07, 08:21 AM	They can ask whatever positioning questions they want. I just tell them where they're going in relation to landmarks that are important for them. Until the whining starts that a player's perception of where he thought he was wasn't the same as where the DM thought he was. I've had players actually try to argue with me that their perception overrode mine, and if not, then they'd want to backtrack a round or more because they would have done things differently. Its just weird to have subtractions as bonuses. It was such that the strength bonus was listed as +1 then you had to stop and remind yourself to subtract. Why did you feel it necessary to say it like that? The reason was so that one could keep track of what was a bonus rather than a penalty. Someone said something about each edition of D&D having les and less reliance on magic items? Not true. 3e still suffers from this just as much as 1E did, although granted with the Feats and such, this may or may not be true according to if player had chosen his Feats a certain way - and not too many players would, actually... not when magic items are still given out/found/etc that boost one's AC and other abilities.
CharlieRock 03-26-07, 08:46 AM	Do any of the older players (or anyone who still uses the original Edition, before TSR sold out to WotC) remember how DnD was played before the introduction of the d20 system? I just can't imagine DnD without the dice, feats, and skills... EDIT: I get the point, dice WERE around, that's a load of the cerebrum :P We used real dragons in 1ed. None of these wussified imaginary types they want us to try and make-believe are real. ;)
Shadowhowler 03-26-07, 04:47 PM	I loved this thread, but I was surprised that no one brought up my favorite Topic: AD&D 2.5 Player's Options I played D&D from the First AD&D, to second eddition, to 2.5... and have only recently started playing 3.5. (I skipped 3.0 compleatly.) No one here has even mentioned 2.5, am I the only one that ever used it? For me... that was were D&D peeked. It got better each time till then, and went downhill from there. It had a lot of the elements you find nowdays... with the battlegrids and ranges and whatnot, but used the 2nd eddition rules, like speedfactor, thaco, blah blah blah. What it also had was total flexability... pretty much anything you could think of, you could make. You could swap out varrious abilites with ease... it was beautiful. My group played with those rules for 6-7 years or so, maybe more, and we LOVED it. When 3rd eddition came out we looked it over, and were sad, becuase while there were a few things we liked about it (Mostly the Skill System and Multiclassing) we did not think it was enough of an improvment, or really an improvment at ALL, to merit replacing houndreds of dollers of books. So we passed. Only reason I even play 3.5 now is I moved across the country, and where I am now they don't play 2.5, much to my deep sadness. The only problem I ever ran into with 2.5 was obvious, and connected to what I liked most about it. The flexability of the character generation made it a Min-Maxer's paradise. However, this is the easiest problem in gaming to overcome. If your playing with a jacka$$ that likes to Min-Max... ask him to leave. Problem solved. Anyway... I was just surprised no one mentioned it... so I have to ask, did *ANYONE* ever even try 2.5?
Link182 03-26-07, 09:03 PM	2E did have great software support
Stormonu 03-27-07, 02:53 AM	Until the whining starts that a player's perception of where he thought he was wasn't the same as where the DM thought he was. I've had players actually try to argue with me that their perception overrode mine, and if not, then they'd want to backtrack a round or more because they would have done things differently. That was why I used minis all the way back in 1E days (and basic as well...) AD&D 2.5 Player's Options I played D&D from the First AD&D, to second eddition, to 2.5... and have only recently started playing 3.5. (I skipped 3.0 compleatly.) No one here has even mentioned 2.5, am I the only one that ever used it? Ah, the red-headed stepchild of D&D. I used a few pieces out of it, but the character creation rules via the point-buy system I avoided as I quickly figured out it was too easy to abuse it to build characters that would make World of Darkness and Palladium characters cringe in horror (ever mention the 1st level Palladium TMNT characters my brother and I made to mop the floor with the Shredder? - Don't ask.) Overall, I was displeased with Player's Option, and was glad 3.0 ignored it and went in a different direction (mostly).
graddlin 03-27-07, 03:15 AM	AD&D. The building blocks of life.
Pet_Sounds 03-27-07, 03:45 AM	I loved this thread, but I was surprised that no one brought up my favorite Topic: AD&D 2.5 Player's Options Actually, the Player's Option (Dexterity = Aim/Balance etc…ptui!) series is what put the nail in the coffin for me as far as 2nd edition was concerned. Most people at that time "Let's just play Magic…" To me 2nd edition peaked with the first Planescape boxed set, after that it really lost its lustre for my friends and myself. Today I would rather play with 1st edition rules than 2nd edition.
Solaris 03-27-07, 04:34 AM	2nd Edition put me off D&D until 3rd Edition came out. Then the morons on the WotC forums put me off 3rd Edition. Any edition of D&D before Gygax left TSR is where it's at.
Pet_Sounds 03-27-07, 04:45 AM	Then the morons on the WotC forums put me off 3rd Edition. Yeah, I know what you mean, especially the ones with the old join dates…
Solaris 03-27-07, 08:12 AM	Yeah, I know what you mean, especially the ones with the old join dates… Oh, did someone with an old join date put you off third edition?
Pet_Sounds 03-27-07, 08:35 AM	Oh, did someone with an old join date put you off third edition? No, just these boards (and gamers) in general.
Shadowhowler 03-27-07, 10:05 AM	Ah, the red-headed stepchild of D&D. I used a few pieces out of it, but the character creation rules via the point-buy system I avoided as I quickly figured out it was too easy to abuse it to build characters that would make World of Darkness and Palladium characters cringe in horror See... thats what I was talking about. The system allowed for unbelivable flexability in character creation... which, as we all know, leaves the door wide open for min-maxers. However, that is the easiest problem in the world to fix: Don't game with dicks. Problem solved. The rest of the players who are NOT dicks will appricate the flexability. I'm currious tho... I've played Palladium games... Ninja's and Superspies, Rifts, ect... and those game have *NOTHING* even approching balance... but how does WoD fit in that catagory? WoD uses a set ammount of points type system, so balance is the rule, not the exception.
a_psh 03-27-07, 10:18 AM	I'm currious tho... I've played Palladium games... Ninja's and Superspies, Rifts, ect... and those game have *NOTHING* even approching balance... but how does WoD fit in that catagory? WoD uses a set ammount of points type system, so balance is the rule, not the exception.Any point-based system like WoD or GURPS is only "balanced" as long as all the choices are appropriately rated. A common min/max technique in point-based grab-bag systems is to look for a really bad, expensive penalty and a really good, expensive special ability that makes the penalty irrelevant. The original WoD, however, is a product of the nineties. It's not like D&D really had a lot of "balance" back then, too. I love to make fun of it, but it is worth noting that it's more than 15 years old now.
CharlieRock 03-27-07, 03:18 PM	Any point-based system like WoD or GURPS is only "balanced" as long as all the choices are appropriately rated. A common min/max technique in point-based grab-bag systems is to look for a really bad, expensive penalty and a really good, expensive special ability that makes the penalty irrelevant. Or picking a disadvantage that will hardly be noticed in the game environment. Missing a leg would suck in the Wild West. But in GURPS Autoduel ,where your driving around in a car most of the time, or Mechwarrior ,ditto with a giant robo, your hardly going to notice it is even gone. That's one reason why GMs had to adjust point cost to each setting. Aquaphobia (or whatever the fear of water is) is a lot bigger a disadvantage on Water World then Tattooine. :cool:
paladin2019 03-27-07, 04:13 PM	On the subject of to hit bonuses and AD&D, they get added to the target's AC, not the attack roll. Why? THAC0 doesn't exist as the simple mechanic of AD&D2E. After the first 20 on the attack matrix, the additional 5 20s are natural 20 only and the 21 is a natural 20 with a +1 weapon, etc. So, the to hit bonus is added to the AC to bring it to an easier to hit column and eliminate the natural 20 requirement. THAC0 is an easier system, and the one change of AD&D2E that I preferred to AD&D.
Shadowhowler 03-27-07, 10:32 PM	Any point-based system like WoD or GURPS is only "balanced" as long as all the choices are appropriately rated. A common min/max technique in point-based grab-bag systems is to look for a really bad, expensive penalty and a really good, expensive special ability that makes the penalty irrelevant. The original WoD, however, is a product of the nineties. It's not like D&D really had a lot of "balance" back then, too. I love to make fun of it, but it is worth noting that it's more than 15 years old now. However, everyone has the exact same acsess to the exact same options... no one rolls and some poeple get screwed and some people get lucky. Thats a form of Balance. As for people making cheese-dick characters... that is possible in any and EVERY system I have ever seen... for me the solution is not attack the mechanics of the game, but just be more selective about who you play with. It seems that a lot of 3.5 players don't want to asign any personal responsibility to their fellow players when they make Min-Maxed characters. The DM has always and will always be the force of Balance, not the rules. It's the DM's job to make sure players make interisting, well thought out characters for the purpass of roleplaying, not optimized uber-munchkins trying to achive the ever elusive 'win'. I just don't get it... the problem is always easily fixed by chossing more carefully the company you keep.
Stormonu 03-28-07, 01:21 AM	I'm currious tho... I've played Palladium games... Ninja's and Superspies, Rifts, ect... and those game have *NOTHING* even approching balance... but how does WoD fit in that catagory? WoD uses a set ammount of points type system, so balance is the rule, not the exception.[quote] [quote] Any point-based system like WoD or GURPS is only "balanced" as long as all the choices are appropriately rated. A common min/max technique in point-based grab-bag systems is to look for a really bad, expensive penalty and a really good, expensive special ability that makes the penalty irrelevant. "Dark Fate" in WoD for the win! Basically, it's a flaw that "you know your character is going to die at some point" that grants a HUGE amount of points. I've taken it several times during building a character, hoping the GM would take advantage of it at some point and my character would go out in blaze of glory at some point - but no GM I played with had the guts to kill my character, so it became a freebie. And, as others have said, there are many more "disadvantages" you can take that have little or no meaning on the game at hand that can really build up your character points to make uber characters. Yeah, the DM can control that stuff, but he's got to be on the ball...and some just aren't. Other times, the problems just don't show up until further down the road, and I'd feel like a prude every time I would have to make someone rebuild their character mid-game because of some problem with character power.
a_psh 03-28-07, 01:27 AM	"Dark Fate" in WoD for the win! ... And, as others have said, there are many more "disadvantages" you can take that have little or no meaning on the game at hand that can really build up your character points to make uber characters.There's a game called Spirit of the Century that has a nice approach, I think: any special ability, good or bad, costs character points. If it comes up in play and could help you, you get a bonus. If it comes up in play and could harm you, you get a penalty and a token to use later (I forget the name -- it's basically kinda like an action point). I think this is a pretty good way to handle this stuff, as there's no real min/maxing to do here. Though there is still the problem of some abilities coming up more often than others (certainly compounded by the fact that you can make up your own abilities) -- SotC tries to solve this mostly by being a very player-driven game. I think the same kind of idea could be applied pretty powerfully to traditional systems if used carefully.
Nobby_Nobbs 03-28-07, 03:31 AM	The more I read your posts, a_pish, the more I'm convinced your a gamer after my own heart. I love Spirit of the Century. Hmm.. Now I must house rule Aspects into D20!
Tzor 03-28-07, 01:20 PM	That was why I used minis all the way back in 1E days (and basic as well...) I never used "minis" in 1E. They were all called "figs" back then. :P And remember only guenine AD&D figures can be guarenteed to be the correct scale! :D
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-28-07, 01:32 PM	"Dark Fate" in WoD for the win! Basically, it's a flaw that "you know your character is going to die at some point" that grants a HUGE amount of points. I've taken it several times during building a character, hoping the GM would take advantage of it at some point and my character would go out in blaze of glory at some point - but no GM I played with had the guts to kill my character, so it became a freebie. Dependants are like that in GURPS. You can basically pile a massive amount of points into a dependant and be fairly certain that 99% of GMs will never take the time and effort to bother with them. They were essentially freebies as well. Another example of a whole class like that was the RIFTS Juicer. You got unltra-powers but had a lifespan of something like 5 years or less, but as most games never lasted anything close to that long you really had no downside.
khyron1144 03-28-07, 10:13 PM	Now that the Player's Option/ DM's Option series has been brought up, here's what I will use from it in my next 2e campaign: 1) The greatly expanded number of Wizard Specialist classes available. 2) The new spells and non-weapon proficiencies from Player's Option: Spells & Magic. 3) The critical hits system. 4) The higher levels of weapon specialization. 5) The expanded weapons list. 6) Race and class customization, if I'm dealing with experienced players. What I'm leaving out, very definitely: 1) The attacks of oppurtunity system from Player's Option: Combat & Tactics 2) Anything that Player's Option: Skills & Powers said about weapon or non-weapon proficiencies. 3) The sub-abilities system.
Steely_Dan 03-29-07, 04:55 AM	What I'm leaving out, very definitely: 3) The sub-abilities system. Yeah, that was a min/maxers wet dream.
a_psh 03-29-07, 09:08 AM	Yeah, that was a min/maxers wet dream.Especially since they were broken up so unevenly. Like Strength was split into an ability that gave you attack/damage bonuses and one that increased your carrying capacity. Then again, given how much it sucked to be a fighter with Str below 18/50 or whatever, making the game more min/maxable did make the game more playable, too.
Steely_Dan 03-29-07, 09:14 AM	Especially since they were broken up so unevenly. Like Strength was split into an ability that gave you attack/damage bonuses and one that increased your carrying capacity. Exactly, and that Aim/Balance (Dex) malarkey…ptui!
Wyrmslave 04-23-07, 08:25 PM	So many unfamiliar mechanics and words...anyone mind 'splaining to a younger gamer? :coolcthul
khyron1144 05-04-07, 02:03 AM	Especially since they were broken up so unevenly. Like Strength was split into an ability that gave you attack/damage bonuses and one that increased your carrying capacity. Then again, given how much it sucked to be a fighter with Str below 18/50 or whatever, making the game more min/maxable did make the game more playable, too. That and I believe there was a book-legal way to turn a rolled 18 into a 20 in one subability. That's at least a little broken. There's also the fact that I almost always use notebook paper character sheets, so doubling my number of lines dedicated to the basic ability scores was not entirely welcome.
khyron1144 05-04-07, 02:31 AM	So many unfamiliar mechanics and words...anyone mind 'splaining to a younger gamer? :coolcthul Okay: THAC0 stands for To Hit Armor Class zero. Armor class used to go down from ten rather than up from ten. That is to say, the two point improvement of leather armor meant an AC of 8. 1e is first edition, the AD&D hardbacks with Gary Gygax as the author with cover credit. 2e is second edition, a revised set of hardbacks that came out in the eighties. The current edition is 3e, sometimes also called 3.x because there was a major mid-edition revision called 3.5 OD&D is Original Dungeons & Dragons and refers to the first rules set, which was a supplement for the Chainmail miniatures wargame. AD&D is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. 1e and 2e are AD&D. AD&D added complications and permutations of a wide variety to, I believe, the OD&D original framework. BECMI is short for Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, Immortal rules. These were also an expansion on OD&D, but in certain respects, less radical than AD&D's revisions. Each of these adjectives: Basic- Immortal was presented as a boxed set of a different color, with each set adding new levels of character advancement and new rules to handle what more powerful characters can do, until in D&D Immortal rules, Player Characters (PCs) could effectively become gods. There was a later revision/ compilation of much of this material as the Dungeons & Dragons Rulescyclopedia hardback. I don't know how many others use it, but I at least occasionally refer to the whole mess in the previous paragraph as Basic D&D. I am not overly familiar with OD&D, but I do have the Basic through Masters boxes, as well as a board-game-like edition of D&D that was released in the 90s. Some differences between the BECMI rules and AD&D include: Armor Class (AC) started at nine rather than ten in BECMI rules. There were only three alignments in BECMI: Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral. There were nine alignments in AD&D, which are the same as the nine alignments used in 3e. Elf, Halfling, and Dwarf were classes in BECMI. AD&D seperated out the race and class system, so one could have a Dwarf Cleric or Dwarf Fighter or whatever. 2.5 is kind of a boards-slang term for the three Player's Option rulebooks and one DM's Option Rulebook that came out relatively close to 2e's demise. These books were: Player's Option: Combat & Tactics, Player's Option: Skills & Powers, Player's Option: Spells & Magic, and DM's Option: High-Level Campaigns. A lot of Combat & Tactics options got rolled over into 3e mechanics, including the Attacks of Opurtunity system. I'm tired now, but let me know what else you'd like to know. And anybody who catches me in an error or outright falsehood in this let me know so that I may correct it.
Escef 05-04-07, 05:52 AM	Player's Option: Skills & Powers Or as I liked to call it, Satan's Player's Handbook.
Puggins 05-04-07, 11:33 AM	Thac0 is/was terribly misunderstood. It's barely different from what we do nowadays. How to switch Thac0 to d20: 1) subtract 20 from your Thac0. 2) Change the sign of the result. Tada! There's your Attack Bonus. As for my experience- I started with the Moldvay boxed set. That was great. 1e was fun. 2e was better at first, and went downhill faster and faster. By the time 3e came out in 2000 I hadn't played D&D in five years and I didn't think I'd ever play D&D again. Needless to say, 3e was a breath of fresh air for me.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 05-04-07, 11:48 AM	BECMI is short for Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, Immortal rules. I have never heard that term before. The acronym BD&D (Basic D&D) is in far more common usage.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 05-04-07, 11:54 AM	Especially since they were broken up so unevenly. Like Strength was split into an ability that gave you attack/damage bonuses and one that increased your carrying capacity. I believe the actual terms used for the Strength sub-stats were "ability to kick the s*** out of things" and "odds of buying a packhorse." ;)
Solaris 05-04-07, 12:54 PM	I have never heard that term before. The acronym BD&D (Basic D&D) is in far more common usage.I've seen BECMI used hundreds of times to describe Frank Mentzer's sets, and BX to describe Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert. I suppose I've seen a few references to BD&D, but it's not very descriptive -- Moldvay or Mentzer? What about Expert and the other sets? I guess most of the time I see them referenced, people are being more specific.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 05-04-07, 12:56 PM	I've seen BECMI used hundreds of times to describe Frank Mentzer's sets, and BX to describe Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert. Yes, but you are not me. As I wrote "I have never heard that term before." I have also never before seen BX used before this quoted post.
Solaris 05-04-07, 12:58 PM	Yes, but you are not me. As I wrote "I have never heard that term before." I have also never before seen BX used before this quoted post. I also wrote "I have seen," and never once implied that I was you, and wasn't disputing that you've heard what you say you've heard. The terms BECMI and BD&D aren't interchangeable anyway -- the former refers to the collection of five boxed sets by Frank Mentzer, and the latter could mean either Mentzer or Moldvay or Holmes (and doesn't necessarily account for Expert, which isn't present under Holmes, or beyond, which is only present under Mentzer). As I said, I suppose that when I've seen people referring to these editions, they've tended to be specific rather than general -- people will be discussing aspects of a particular rule system (and they all differ). Your mileage evidently varies.
Kursk 05-04-07, 05:35 PM	There were skills, but they weren't emphasized as much because most unusual questions could be resolved with some kind of roll under Attribute X on d20 roll. Did I fall down there? Roll your Dex or less on a d20. But, 20 sided dice weren't a part of D&D until the "D20" system came out! :rofl:
not Yoda 05-04-07, 05:57 PM	D&D before D20 hmmm.... It appeared to me that D&D the was level 1-10 centric so to speak. More xp required to level and it accumulated far more slowly. Now it's more 1-20 centric even though most campaigns never see 16+. The net result of this IMHO was a better balanced game. Since the vast majority of game breaking garbage is 11-20+. Polymorph was never too big of a problem in 2e at least for our group.
Alcari Ambaron 05-04-07, 06:26 PM	I recall my chars always living very short and bright lives in the previous editions. I remember thinking it very odd that you could suddenly be BOTH an dwarf AND a fighter (in fact, i recall saying "What's next, being both elf and human?") Also, I liked the good old system of actaully being able to qualify before playing a class. (no retard wizards). While i'm at it, let's keep thinking back to "Ye goode olde days" and say what a good idea Kits are, and how we miss the great old Save system. I preferr will/ref/fort over Wand/death/etc any day. Still, THAC0 wasn't such a bad idea, why is everyone saying it is? It's different, but not worse or better. (ok, it got a little confusing when you hit negative numbers, but anyone with half a brain could do it)
skathros 05-04-07, 09:36 PM	There were dice. There have always been dice. unless you go "old school" and use chits. :D
khyron1144 05-04-07, 11:14 PM	unless you go "old school" and use chits. :D To make the there were always dice statement a little clearer: Sheep's nucklebones were used as dice at least a hundred years before D&D was a gleem in Gary Gygax's eye. That's all I was trying to say. Dice are an old idea.
Escef 05-05-07, 06:22 AM	unless you go "old school" and use chits. :D That's enough of that chit.
AllisterH 05-05-07, 08:30 AM	Still, THAC0 wasn't such a bad idea, why is everyone saying it is? It's different, but not worse or better. (ok, it got a little confusing when you hit negative numbers, but anyone with half a brain could do it) Yes, THACO is markedly inferior to the current system. I find it amusing that people try to use "if you're too stupid to use THACO you shouldn't be playing". I say this with 100% confidence. No engineer worthy of the Iron Ring would choose THACO over the current system and let's face it, engineers as a profession are the ones who use math the most. Basic 1st year engineering class: Any system designed should be intuitive as possible. Complexity for complexity's sake is NOT a good thing. THACO and its interaction with armour, ability modifiers etc. is a PRIME example of a poorly thought out system.
Shadowhowler 05-05-07, 08:53 AM	Basic 1st year engineering class: Any system designed should be intuitive as possible. Complexity for complexity's sake is NOT a good thing. Agreed. If, however, it is used as a filter for idiots, it is no longer 'for complexity's' sake, as it were... it has another purpass. :)
Gift_of_Fury 05-05-07, 09:29 AM	Hail to 2nd Edition!!!! It is the system I and my group grew up with and have reverted to (with some home brew rules thrown in) after playing D20 for a few months and finding the system to have far too many constraints and rule inconsistencies. humph!!! D20 (snorts) what a fools errand! :D
Escef 05-05-07, 09:50 AM	...after playing D20 for a few months and finding the system to have far too many constraints and rule inconsistencies. Please tell me that's sarcasm. D20 D&D less consistant and more constrained than 2e?
Roxlimn 05-05-07, 02:08 PM	Purpass?
Flying_Blind 05-05-07, 04:19 PM	I see a lot of people saying that they liked the old style because it was more relaxed and not so ridged. well, maybe I'm an evil, evil man, but my games are still relaxed and I refuse to buy a new book every 6 months just because someone decided to tweek some rules. speaking of rules, if I like the rule I use it, if not it stays in the book and gathers dust. to me D&D and all role playing games are about telling a story and the system is just a way to fairly resolve the conflicts that naturally arise in the story. the specifics of the system don't matter so long as they are applied consistantly. I think people tend to forget that with thier battlemaps and miniatures and rules. I'm the DM who takes the dice away from players if thier character ever says something like "quick heal me, I only have a few hit points left!" HEADS UP PEOPLE! no matter how many rules WOTC creates, changes, or deletes, the story is yours and you run the show. Take what WotC has given you and and make it yours, adapt it to fit your style, comfort, and setting. in the end it really is all about the story and the characters, don't let the rules get in the way.
jeffepp 05-05-07, 04:54 PM	THAC0 was never really meant to use negative numbers. The idea that everybody would run around in +12 full plate (OK that might be a little extreme) was not part of the original system. Then, DnD came along, and the fixed figure stats became dynamic characters that improved quickly, but nobody bothered to change the armor class system to keep up. THAC0 was never an "IQ test" for gamers. It was a relic from chain mail that should have been changed when DnD split from it's parent game. But, like many other original rule mechanics, there was (and obliviously sill are) a very vocal hard liner effort to keep it in place for so many editions and versions of the game.
protonik 05-05-07, 09:18 PM	And no need of **** like 18 of charisma, 15 of wisdom, and ... to qualify for a class. It was way simpler and less time consuming to create a npc. I liked ability score requirements because it made those classes that much more special in the party.
celtredleg 05-05-07, 09:42 PM	I liked ability score requirements because it made those classes that much more special in the party. All it did for use was make somebody reroll 25-50 times before they got what they wanted. Or of course you could always make them play something they did not want to play, with predictable results. No I dont miss class requirements
Ezell Pike 05-05-07, 09:59 PM	Please tell me that's sarcasm. D20 D&D less consistant and more constrained than 2e? Consistent, well maybe not, but it worked. In some ways it was far less constrained. The 7 pages of combat rules vs 20+ now. Fewer rules in that area lead to faster combats. On the otherhand initiative was a bear that smelled like D20's polymorph issues. But as for my observations of D&D before D20....(and inresponse to a previous post) Yea old save system (as unpleasant as some think it) made yea old metagaming "which save would be flunked by whom" a little dicier.:D Spells and magic were better balanced IMO and if they would just take the old spell components and update them things would change dramatically. For example the all too often cited Gate had the exact same penalty as Wish ( wich would net you -5000xp ouch that has to hurt). Heck, even Polymorph was useable just check it out. Oddly enough, D20 also has incosistencies yet it continues to function. Damage reduction I think the change in 3.0 was good the change in 3.5 I'm not fond of. The reason behind the change, was supposedly they did not like the idea of "you must be this tall to fight creature X" as implied by the increasing + value of weapons needed to hit said baddie. To these fools I posit the question "What is CR for?" Which brings me to my favorite "Monsters" d20 took icons from previous editions see "Pit Fiend" among others and made them much higher level than they were before. Placing them out of bounds for all but the highest level campaigns.
protonik 05-05-07, 10:13 PM	Well, honestly, things started to get unbalanced in AD&D 1st edition when the Unearthed Arcana came out, with the Barbarian, the Cavalier and the Acrobat... No they didn't because it was the DM's job to keep things from getting unbalanced. The whole point in the special classes was that they were more powerful than the base classes!!! It was at this point that people started crying unbalanced while forgetting it was the DM's job. They wanted TSR to do it for them!!!!
celtredleg 05-05-07, 10:43 PM	I dont remeber a single argument about balance in an ODD or 1e game. It was simply recognized that some things where more powerful than others. I played cavs because you where closer to power with a MU than you had been before. Balance was never an issue that I came across until I got online for 3.5. Then it was a huge issue. And no, I dint just play in one small area. I was in the Army and played in 4 differrent sates, and Germany as well.
Escef 05-06-07, 04:33 AM	Which brings me to my favorite "Monsters" d20 took icons from previous editions see "Pit Fiend" among others and made them much higher level than they were before. Placing them out of bounds for all but the highest level campaigns. CR is a guideline, not something that must be slavishly obeyed. Also, the CR system was designed around 4-5 encounters per day (each encounter of level CR or EL theoretically using up 20% of the party's resources). Throwing a beastie of level +1 or +2 CR at the party is fine, so long as you cut back the encounters per day. A mid-level caster who "novas" can take down some big stuff very fast. And honestly, if you threw a Pit Fiend at too low a level party in any edition the result is a TPK. In case you haven't noticed, many of the "high end" monsters have gottan bigger and badder in every edition. A 1e dragon couldn't match a 2e dragon of equal type and age, either.
Ezell Pike 05-07-07, 09:07 AM	CR is a guideline, not something that must be slavishly obeyed. Also, the CR system was designed around 4-5 encounters per day (each encounter of level CR or EL theoretically using up 20% of the party's resources). Throwing a beastie of level +1 or +2 CR at the party is fine, so long as you cut back the encounters per day. A mid-level caster who "novas" can take down some big stuff very fast. And honestly, if you threw a Pit Fiend at too low a level party in any edition the result is a TPK. In case you haven't noticed, many of the "high end" monsters have gottan bigger and badder in every edition. A 1e dragon couldn't match a 2e dragon of equal type and age, either. Guideline, yes, but it still is the measuring stick that says you should be this tall to ride. Tru a Pit Fiend would be a tpk for a party that was too low a level. The difference is that the too low level was about 8th in 2e now it's about 16th.
Escef 05-07-07, 10:54 AM	Tru a Pit Fiend would be a tpk for a party that was too low a level. The difference is that the too low level was about 8th in 2e now it's about 16th. As I said, though, the high-end monsters have been getting bigger and badder with every rules revision. I think part of it was people looking at what was going on and saying, "Hey, this big bad monster is getting creamed in groups by 12th level parties. Something's not right." Given the place that large/old dragons, pit fiends, balors, et al occupy, it makes sense for them to be a challenge to upper level players. In 1e people often didn't play much past 8th level (and those who did often had stories of how easy it was to beat arch-devils). People are expected to play up to higher levels in the modern era. The longest uninterrupted 2e campaign I had only took characters from around 2nd level to 9th. Longest continuous campaign I've had in 3.X has gone from levels 1 to 15.