PDA

View Full Version : I Miss AD&D



Pages : [1] 2

Chainsaw Hobbit
2010-07-03, 11:27 PM
I often get nostalgic about AD&D, and I realize those days will never return. :smallfrown:
I miss bards really sucking.
I miss using erasers and clothespins as monsters due to lack of miniatures.
I miss THAC0 and race-class restrictions.
I miss the crappy black and white artwork in the old books.
I miss stupid, hilarious, awesome monsters like the Flumph and the Gazebo.
I miss getting bad rolls for attributes and hit points.
I miss rogues being called "thieves" and wizards being called dorky things like "magic-users".
I miss "Keep on the Borderlands" and "Undermountain".
I miss boxed sets and and lame AD&D computer games.
And most of all I miss my first D&D game which was a total TPK.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-03, 11:30 PM
I often get nostalgic about AD&D, and I realize those days will never return. :smallfrown:
I miss bards really sucking.
I miss using erasers and clothespins as monsters due to lack of miniatures.
I miss THAKO and race-class restrictions.
I miss the crappy black and white artwork in the old books.
I miss stupid, hilarious, awesome monsters like the Flumph and the Gazebo.
I miss getting bad rolls for attributes and hit points.
I miss rogues being called "thieves" and wizards being called dorky things like "magic-users".
I miss "Keep on the Borderlands" and "Undermountain".
I miss boxed sets and and lame AD&D computer games.
And most of all I miss my first D&D game which was a total TPK.

Indeed, the golden days of D&D are gone. But if you really like nostalgia, try picking up Hackmaster. It's just like AD&D. :)
I remember being the only character surviving to be higher than level 1, because I wore armor and used a sword... as a monk. xD

Beelzebub1111
2010-07-03, 11:34 PM
You spelled "THAC0" wrong...so you can't miss it that much. :smalltongue:

(it's an acronym for "To Hit Armor Class Zero" for those not in the know)

Chainsaw Hobbit
2010-07-03, 11:38 PM
(it's an acronym for "To Hit Armor Class Zero" for those not in the know)

I know what it means.

EDIT
I read your post again an realized that your comment wasn't targeted at me, sorry.

InkEyes
2010-07-03, 11:42 PM
The best solution is to play it, then.

doliest
2010-07-03, 11:44 PM
I miss Dragon Mountain. It's honestly my favorite Module. Period. My group and I still bust it and the old rule books out every year as a way to remember the old days.

That and I miss watching with amusement as the Paladin almost never got hit, but did much less damage than the thief/magic user who was a higher level in both classes.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-03, 11:46 PM
Also go play Planescape: Torment, and Baldur's Gate I, II, and the expansion packs.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2010-07-03, 11:48 PM
I miss Dragon Mountain. It's honestly my favorite Module. Period. My group and I still bust it and the old rule books out every year as a way to remember the old days.

That and I miss watching with amusement as the Paladin almost never got hit, but did much less damage than the thief/magic user who was a higher level in both classes.

I remember that!
Ahhhh, Dragon Mountain: the dungeon of 1000 TPKs (at least for my party). :smalltongue:



Also go play Planescape: Torment, and Baldur's Gate I, II, and the expansion packs. They suck, but in the absolute bestest way possible. They're really, really sexy.

I never played PST, I liked "Slayer" and "Eye of the Beholder".

John Campbell
2010-07-04, 12:00 AM
I miss rules that were written by people who understood why they were that way in the first place.
I miss not having every aspect of the game bound up and wound up in rules that dictate what you can do... and, more often, what you can't.
I miss being able to make a character in twenty minutes, most of which was coming up with a name.
I miss magic items being rare and exciting rather than something you have to have tens of thousands of gold pieces worth of just to have half a prayer of being able to keep up with the power curve.
I miss fighters being good fighters.

And, most of all:

I miss having players who'll play AD&D rather than shun it because they swallowed the big lie about how much simpler 3.x is that WotC told and told right up until the day 4E came out.


And I miss all of the other good systems that the d20 propaganda campaign killed or mortally wounded.

chiasaur11
2010-07-04, 12:14 AM
I never played PST, I liked "Slayer" and "Eye of the Beholder".

Well, if you can find it reasonably priced, it's considered one of the best games of all time.

Beelzebub1111
2010-07-04, 12:14 AM
Nostalgia is one thing, but when you are currently playing second edition, the flaws shine through:

I don't miss unbeatable magic resistance weather you're 1st or 50th level.
I don't miss having to roll for initiative every round.
I don't miss Weapon speeds and casting times causing monsters to go first every round anyways
I don't miss aging as a penalty for casting Haste
I don't miss having a flat die roll for a saving throw.
I don't miss dual-class characters getting twice as many hit points as single class character
I don't miss not being able to recover ability damage/drain without wishes
I don't miss having different experience tables for different classes
I don't miss every third NPC and their Grandma being over 17th level
And I sure as hell don't miss THAC0

And bard's don't suck in 2nd editon...unless you have a DM that doesn't let you take spells from schools other than Enchantment, Illusion, and Song.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 12:14 AM
I often get nostalgic about AD&D, and I realize those days will never return. :smallfrown:
I miss bards really sucking.\
I miss THAC0 and race-class restrictions.
You could just play the game. That would make this apply again.



I miss using erasers and clothespins as monsters due to lack of miniatures. You could still do this.



I miss stupid, hilarious, awesome monsters like the Flumph and the Gazebo. Don't they have these for 3.5?


I miss getting bad rolls for attributes and hit points. I'm pretty sure 3.5 still has these too. Wasn't it actually AD&D that was accused of being the edition where you just kept rolling until you got good scores?


I miss "Keep on the Borderlands" and "Undermountain". Well, maybe this isn't the same but I'm playing in a 3.5 game called "Expedition to undermountain." If it is the same you could ask the guy to give you his conversion of the game.


I miss boxed sets and and lame AD&D computer games. Can't you play the lame AD&D computer games again? Not entirely sure what boxed sets are so I can't comment on that.

Some of your problems don't really seem like "Problems". They seem to have pretty easy solutions other than converting campaigns to different editions, forcing people to use specific terms and forcing WOTC to use crappy art.

Most of this applies to 4th edition too except for the rolling.

Rixx
2010-07-04, 12:31 AM
I miss the concept of optional rules.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 12:33 AM
I miss the concept of optional rules.

Am I the only one who thinks most of these things still exist? Including these? My DM has changed several rules in the past.

Rixx
2010-07-04, 12:37 AM
3.5 is a house of cards - pull one part out, the whole thing comes tumbling down.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 12:39 AM
3.5 is a house of cards - pull one part out, the whole thing comes tumbling down.

I disagree. Lets leave it at that.

Rixx
2010-07-04, 12:42 AM
Well, I'll just say that you're unlikely to convince anyone in a topic full of wistful AD&D remembrance to wholly embrace 3.5, and you can probably do better things with your time than try.

I miss nonweapon proficiencies.

Rappy
2010-07-04, 12:43 AM
I miss stupid, hilarious, awesome monsters like the Flumph and the Gazebo.
Tome of Horrors. Just sayin'.


I miss rogues being called "thieves" and wizards being called dorky things like "magic-users".
Couldn't you fluff that in? Or, even better, find a group willing to play AD&D with you? I'm sure I've seen them around, and I imagine they'd find it awesome to have another player.

That's the best thing about RPGs; even if they are "abandoned" by their creators, they will always have their fans (well, almost always).

Rixx
2010-07-04, 12:45 AM
I think someone should give AD&D the "Pathfinder treatment" - streamline the rules and make them more consistent, strip out a lot of the stuff nobody used, and add a bunch of new options for core rules characters.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 12:46 AM
Well, I'll just say that you're unlikely to convince anyone in a topic full of wistful AD&D remembrance to wholly embrace 3.5, and you can probably do better things with your time than try. Probably. I just figured that it didn't make much sense to complain about several things when they aren't edition or even D&D specific. I don't care if any of you don't like the same editions as me. It's just that several of the things Josha was saying he doesn't encounter anymore are hardly D&D specific.


I miss nonweapon proficiencies.

These are though. At least AFAIK. I'm not even entirely sure what they are honestly.

Rappy
2010-07-04, 12:48 AM
I think someone should give AD&D the "Pathfinder treatment" - streamline the rules and make them more consistent, strip out a lot of the stuff nobody used, and add a bunch of new options for core rules characters.
I could have sworn someone actually did that, but I wouldn't trust my memory of that too much.

I wasn't really embroiled in earlier editions because of my parents and reasons that are not board rules-friendly, so I'm not hugely 'in the loop" about such matters.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-04, 12:48 AM
I miss being new to roleplay, and seeing an entire fantasy world of possibilities unrolling before my eyes, not knowing how to play, or being constrained by arbitrary rules. I miss not having to make builds (though I do enjoy making builds) and just trying to take on creepy-crawlies with my wits and whatever I happen to have on-hand.

In short, I miss being young, ignorant, and full of possibilities.

Rixx
2010-07-04, 12:49 AM
Nonweapon proficiencies are basically AD&D's version of skills (besides the thief skills) - basically stuff your character could do besides their combat abilities. Maybe you're also a farmer, or a herald, or you can read another language, or know about blacksmithing or herbal remedies - they were really narrative-based and rather nice for character fluff.

Math_Mage
2010-07-04, 12:50 AM
I miss the concept of optional rules.

The only rule that is not optional is "roll a d20, see what happens." Everything else can be modified to taste.

Wait, no, I tell a lie; some people roll 2d10 or 3d6.

Rixx
2010-07-04, 12:51 AM
The only rule that is not optional is "roll a d20, see what happens." Everything else can be modified to taste.

Wait, no, I tell a lie; some people roll 2d10 or 3d6.

You're right! No more attacks of opportunity.

OOPS, GAME BROKEN


(One thing I do like in 3.5 that wasn't in AD&D is feats. I love the crap out of feats.)

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 12:52 AM
You're right! No more attacks of opportunity.

OOPS, GAME BROKEN



The game was broken before that.:smalltongue:

Rixx
2010-07-04, 12:55 AM
True enough!

Something I want to do sometime is run through AD&D and streamline it, as well as importing the stuff form 3.5 that I like (such as feats and the way unarmed combat and nonlethal damage are handled), and see how that turns out.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 12:56 AM
True enough!

Something I want to do sometime is run through AD&D and streamline it, as well as importing the stuff form 3.5 that I like (such as feats and the way unarmed combat and nonlethal damage are handled), and see how that turns out.

Go ahead. We're not stopping you. (Well, I'm not.)

Just avoid Leadership like the plague.

Math_Mage
2010-07-04, 12:57 AM
You're right! No more attacks of opportunity.

OOPS, GAME BROKEN


(One thing I do like in 3.5 that wasn't in AD&D is feats. I love the crap out of feats.)

I said 'can be modified', not 'can be discarded without thinking about how it impacts the game'. Certainly the anatomy of a combat round is one of the most basic elements of the system, but even that doesn't mean it can't be changed.

EDIT: I suppose I should qualify my post--I'm thinking in top-down terms, where we start with the complete system and start taking things out, sometimes replacing with homebrewed workarounds. You're probably thinking in bottom-up terms, building a workable system through judicious selection of optional rules, and ignoring the rest entirely. In which case, yeah, I see the point.

Umael
2010-07-04, 01:10 AM
Also go play Planescape: Torment, and Baldur's Gate I, II, and the expansion packs. They suck, but in the absolute bestest way possible. They're really, really sexy.

...

*opens mouth*

...

*closes mouth*

...

All right then! I'll just leave that alone...

nyjastul69
2010-07-04, 01:19 AM
Go ahead. We're not stopping you. (Well, I'm not.)

Just avoid Leadership like the plague.

Leadership is only as broken as the DM, as is all of the game.

I don't miss the games, I still own them. I just miss the naivete. The internet crushes that like a bug.

I always refered to it as 'HAC(K)O' it seemed more appropriate.

I agree with the HackMaster suggestion if your looking for old school.

There is also the retro stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSRIC

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 01:21 AM
Leadership is only as broken as the DM. As is all of the game.


The problem with Leadership is there's no good way to interpret the feat. Which is why most DMs ban it.

Caliphbubba
2010-07-04, 01:25 AM
meh. I still play it once a month, and frankly almost wish i didn't. cause it makes me RAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEE so often.

nyjastul69
2010-07-04, 01:27 AM
The problem with Leadership is there's no good way to interpret the feat. Which is why most DMs ban it.

Only a poor GM, or one bullied by players, can't figure it out.

Edit: Cripes, ya quoted me before I could poorly edit my own poor grammar. Sweet.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 01:29 AM
Only a poor GM, or one bullied by players, can't figure it out.

Figure what out exactly?

nyjastul69
2010-07-04, 01:32 AM
Figure what out exactly?

I don't need to figure anything out. If you do ask for help.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 01:34 AM
I don't need to figure anything out. If you do ask for help.

The only thing I need to figure out is what you're trying to say. You're being fairly vague about this.

Only a bad GM or a GM who's bullied by players can't figure out a vague and possibly overpowered feat?

Zaq
2010-07-04, 01:37 AM
I think someone should give AD&D the "Pathfinder treatment" - streamline the rules and make them more consistent, strip out a lot of the stuff nobody used, and add a bunch of new options for core rules characters.

I never played AD&D, but from what I've gathered, isn't that kind of what a lot of people like about it? That the game was little more than a collection of houserules stitched together (which, while that sounds bad, I say in the most value-neutral way... the way I play Kobolds Ate My Baby, for example, only bears about a 15-20% resemblance to what's in the little orange book, but that's what makes me happy), that the base classes were more straitjackets than actual classes, and that the GM was expected to take a far, far more active role than in the default of modern D&D?

Seriously, I'm asking. Based on what I hear on the internet, it seems like a lot of AD&D fans consider these to be selling points, so I'm curious.

For Valor
2010-07-04, 01:54 AM
Y'know what I miss? The ceiling monster, floor monster, and ooze-that-pretends-to-be-a-wall monster.

"Hello adventurer. You walk into the room. That's when the floor starts to fight with the ceiling about who gets to eat you. While they fight you sneak along the wall, hoping to escape...only to find out the wall's already starting to digest you the moment you touch it. Adventurer, I hope you've enjoyed your stay in the Room of Death. Remember to fill out your comment card."

Thank you, Monster Manuals...

J.Gellert
2010-07-04, 02:26 AM
Leadership is just an attempt to make actual rules about AD&D's "fighter's followers" rules.

Basically, AD&D was streamlined and cleaned up, the result was just 3rd edition :smalltongue: BAB is reverse THAC0 (streamlined and cleaned up). The numbers are the same, and even the armor class bonus from the various armors match up exactly.

Magic Missile still is 1d4+1 damage per missile, one missile every two levels, and Fireball is 1d6/level. What more do you want?

Things I miss:
- Less HPs over 10th level, which made blasting awesome. (Conan D20 does this, which goes to show it's a house rule that works).
- Race/Class restrictions. Everyone is equal, but not everyone is identical. My dwarves don't cast spells and don't use magic items except for those specifically designed for their class! (They can also intuit depth :smallbiggrin:)
- The art. I mean the art from 2nd edition AD&D.
- Hobbits. I don't like the "human, only tiny" halflings.
- Lizardmen, and referring to my character as a "he" throughout the books. Seriously, eh, WotC? :smallredface:
- The simple things. I don't like the recent trend of exaggerating everything. D&D art and games give us spikey swords and shoulder pieces. D&D stories give us caricature ork bartenders and kobold bards. The iconic PC wizard isn't even wearing a robe!

and so on...

As you can see, most of that is just because of tradition.

Except for the art. I simply hate 3.# edition art. Passionately.

nyjastul69
2010-07-04, 02:46 AM
The only thing I need to figure out is what you're trying to say. You're being fairly vague about this.

Only a bad GM or a GM who's bullied by players can't figure out a vague and possibly overpowered feat?

Sorry, I came off a bit snarky there I think. I didn't mean to.

If a DM can't figure out how to allow Leadership without it breaking the game, don't allow it. It's in the DMG for a reason. Without the DM saying you may have this feat, it doesn't exist for a player. If the DM allows it, and can't adjudicate/iron out its problems, he did it wrong. The 'rules' aren't actually rules, they're guidlines for having fun. If the players and DM can't meet in the middle on this, what's the point?

The gist of what I'm saying is that there are vague rules in all the systems I've ever played. It's the DM's responsibility to adjudicate the vague bits. The DM tells his players what his interpretation is and they agree or disagree. Good players roll with the DM. A good DM rolls with his players. I don't actually understand what's broken with Leadership. I know, some say my cohort takes it too. Just say no. I honestly think the game can't be broken by players. It's just that some GM's allow their games to be broken by some players.

I actually had a more lengthy and better articulated post but the system ate it. Too bad there's no 'save post' feature.

Edit: It just did it to me again. After hitting 'submit' it told me I wasn't logged on.

Ossian
2010-07-04, 02:54 AM
Oh, and the level caps for semi humans in the boxed sets? And the endless series of SSI turn based videogames? Ah, those days...

erikun
2010-07-04, 03:34 AM
Isn't there a homebrew updated version of AD&D on the forum? Serpents and Sewers, or something like that? I hope someone will be along to provide it. In any case, here's what I miss and don't miss from the 2nd edition days.

I miss rolling 3d6 for stats.
I miss having a 8 and still being decent.
I miss having a 16 and being considered impressive.
I miss putting together a character in 15 minutes for any level.
I miss being able to go into a dungeon without gear and not be suicide.
I miss thieves being stealthy.
I miss fighters being compotent.
I miss the absurdity of putting together a party containing a Giant Cleric, a Weretiger Fighter, and a Doppelganger Rogue, without worrying about LA or RHD or CR.
I miss being able to do things without feats.

I do not miss THAC0, although I understood it.
I do not miss the only benefit of humans being bards and paladins.
I do not miss multiclassing, dualclassing, and different experience tables.
I do not miss being completely lost at what would be an appropriate encounter or treasure for a group.
I do not miss dying horribly because the DM misjudged the strength of the monster we just encountered, because this happens in later editions just as frequently.

Rothen
2010-07-04, 03:46 AM
In short, I miss being young, ignorant, and full of possibilities.


Wait a second...That has nothing to do with AD&D! :smallamused:

Silly derailers.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 03:49 AM
Wait a second...That has nothing to do with AD&D! :smallamused:

Silly derailers.

Neither does using erasers and clothespins as minis AFAIK.

Zombimode
2010-07-04, 04:26 AM
I don't miss unbeatable magic resistance weather you're 1st or 50th level.

Matter of taste I guess. I like it better then SR that doesnt do anything because its easy to avoid it.


I don't miss having to roll for initiative every round.

While it is certainly a bit more works, it strongly adds to the dynamics of a battle.


I don't miss Weapon speeds and casting times causing monsters to go first every round anyways

I cant say if you are misremembering or not, but this claim is NOT supported by the rules.
Weapons speeds lay between 2 (for very fast) and 10 (for very slow weapons as an intended disadvantage). The longsword is in the middle ground with 5. Now for magic weapons this number is reduced be the weapons +.
Casting time for arcane spells is for the most time equal to their spell level, cleric spells a bit higher (to represent that whole "praying and chanting" stuff). The higher casting times of higher level spells is an intended disadvantage of these powerfull magics. Either way the highest castig time is 9 (save for the seldom 1 round casting times).
Now lets take a look on "monster" initiatives. If they use spells or weapons they use exactly the same weapon speeds and casting times as the pcs. So, for weapon using and casting enemies your claim is clearly wrong.
Enemies with natural weapons have the following speeds:
tiny: 0
small and medium: 3
large: 6
huge: 9
gargantuan: 12
(not sure about the names; I only know the german translations of them)
Ok, tiny, small and medium creatures are desinged to be fast. But so is a PC with a dagger (speed 2) or with a longsword +2 (speed 3) or a wizard casting a spell from the levels 1 - 4 (casting time 1 - 4).
Large creatures are definately on the "slow" side of initiative and large and gargantuan creature are almost guaranteed to go last.

Conclusion: by looking at the actual rules, your statement is completely false.
Maybe your group messed up something or used some weird housrules.


I don't miss aging as a penalty for casting Haste

Agreed. But fortunately it easy enough to ignore if everyone on the table agrees.


I don't miss having a flat die roll for a saving throw.

If you mean that the save DC was in most cases 20, I would say it a desing choice and a matter of taste. I see the merits of both systems (for the most time constant DCs vs. wildly fluctuating DCs).


I don't miss dual-class characters getting twice as many hit points as single class character

You are either misremebering or your gruop didnt handel it according to the rules.
For the rules beeing concerned your statement is clearly wrong.


I don't miss not being able to recover ability damage/drain without wishes

Damage to abilities was very rare. The methods for recover varied according to the nature of the loss. Possible methods included: cure disease, remove curse, restoration and heal. Only in extremely rare cases it could only be recovered with a wish.
So you are probably misrembering.


I don't miss having different experience tables for different classes

Yeah, I dont like those very much. Maybe if they were more choherent.
Triing to balance each class on the same level is the better desing (not that 3e was very sucessfull with this approach...).


I don't miss every third NPC and their Grandma being over 17th level

Sooooo much not a fault of the rules. This is a problem with the DM.
The 2e DMG even suggests that the overwhelming majority of NPCs are level 0 classless'.

If anything this is a problem with 3e where anything have to have a class and a level and where skillpoints and max ranks are level dependent, so master smiths need to be level X and so on.


And I sure as hell don't miss THAC0

Well yeah, I never understood why they came up with THAC0. The mechanics of the attack rolles are the same in D&D 3e and 4e, but the display is much simpler.


And bard's don't suck in 2nd editon...unless you have a DM that doesn't let you take spells from schools other than Enchantment, Illusion, and Song.

Agreed.

Wings of Peace
2010-07-04, 04:58 AM
@The commentators on how the OP should just find an AD&D group:

Yes, this would be a simple solution, but he may not live in such an area. I know for my part it's hard enough to find people who still play 3.x where I am let alone less popular RPGs. It's a great idea but if he's not in an area where its an option then there isn't much he can do.

Honestly though, it sounds like he misses the days more so when D&D was still a TOTAL sub-culture, as in if you didn't have friends who were willing to play you were playing yourself, plain and simple. That, at least to me is not a sensation he is going to find replicated in a group of total strangers. I'm not advocating against meeting new players on the whole or anything, I'm just saying it doesn't sound like the type of experience he's commenting on.

nyjastul69
2010-07-04, 05:06 AM
Figure what out exactly?

The 'it' I was refering to was the Leadership Feat. I know you know that that. My response post, #36, was... well for lack of better term, crappy. I got cross for some reason. What I said was rude and is certainly not proper decorum for this forum. I apologize, I dislike bad-blood.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 05:06 AM
@The commentators on how the OP should just find an AD&D group:

Yes, this would be a simple solution, but he may not live in such an area. I know for my part it's hard enough to find people who still play 3.x where I am let alone less popular RPGs. It's a great idea but if he's not in an area where its an option then there isn't much he can do.

Honestly though, it sounds like he misses the days more so when D&D was still a TOTAL sub-culture, as in if you didn't have friends who were willing to play you were playing yourself, plain and simple. That, at least to me is not a sensation he is going to find replicated in a group of total strangers. I'm not advocating against meeting new players on the whole or anything, I'm just saying it doesn't sound like the type of experience he's commenting on.

He could try and get his friends to play with him. Unless he doesn't have any friends. IN which case he has bigger problems than the fact he can't play AD&D.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 05:09 AM
The 'it' I was refering to was the Leadership Feat. I know you know that that. My response post, #36, was... well for lack of better term, crappy. I got cross for some reason. What I said was rude and is certainly not proper decorum for this forum. I apologize, I dislike bad-blood.

Actually I didn't know that. I could assume that but making assumptions has lead to bad results in the past for me.

I just don't think the feat is balanced. Either you get an extra PC for a feat or you get an NPC but instead of hiring them you have to spend a feat on it. Also, if you read the feat a certain way the DM build the character and he could easily screw you over with that. I'm not saying he will, it's just he has a lot more control over that feat than most others.

EDIT: While it's not the best solution, some of the players in here could look around for an AD&D PbP. It's not an optimal choice but it's better than nothing.

PinkysBrain
2010-07-04, 05:21 AM
I could have sworn someone actually did that, but I wouldn't trust my memory of that too much.
Castles and Crusades?

Yora
2010-07-04, 05:26 AM
...
*opens mouth*
...
*closes mouth*
...
All right then! I'll just leave that alone...
I am as shocked and offended as you are. :smallbiggrin:

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-04, 06:26 AM
He could try and get his friends to play with him. Unless he doesn't have any friends. IN which case he has bigger problems than the fact he can't play AD&D.

Or his friends just don't like playing RPGs.

Mike_G
2010-07-04, 06:48 AM
I think someone should give AD&D the "Pathfinder treatment" - streamline the rules and make them more consistent, strip out a lot of the stuff nobody used, and add a bunch of new options for core rules characters.

Somebody did that a while back. Like in 1999 or so.

I think it was Wizards of Somethingorother....

nyjastul69
2010-07-04, 06:54 AM
Actually I didn't know that. I could assume that but making assumptions has lead to bad results in the past for me.

I just don't think the feat is balanced. Either you get an extra PC for a feat or you get an NPC but instead of hiring them you have to spend a feat on it. Also, if you read the feat a certain way the DM build the character and he could easily screw you over with that. I'm not saying he will, it's just he has a lot more control over that feat than most others.

EDIT: While it's not the best solution, some of the players in here could look around for an AD&D PbP. It's not an optimal choice but it's better than nothing.



I did assume something. I shoudn't have done so. A DM can certainly screw the players over with that feat. I just really don't get why one would. Just screw 'em over anyway. A DM doesn't need a feat to do that. It's a good feat that when handled well by both the player and the DM can add a ton of fun to the game. Enough talk!...:smallsmile:

Something I don't miss about 1e is the convoluted magic resistance. Most beasties that had MR had it on the order of 5%-25%. Seems straight foward, if not too easy to beat (most were 5%-15%). If the beastie rolls it's MR or less it's not affected. Hold on sec cowboy. It's based on 11th lvl of magic use. What that means is: take your caster lvl, say 5, subtract it from 11 and multiply the difference by 5, then add that number to the beasties MR. So, for a 5th lvl caster casting against MR 15% the actual MR is 45%.

It's an obsure rule buried in the the great, but oh so poorly organized 1e DMG. Oh, BTW if you're above 11th lvl the math continues the same and you can decrease it's MR. Although 1e games rarely got beyond 9th-12th lvl. That was more or less max for the system, so it mostly moot anyhow.

I'm glad 2e fixed that and gave a flat% MR for beasties.

Yora
2010-07-04, 07:10 AM
Something I don't miss about 1e is the convoluted magic resistance. Most beasties that had MR had it on the order of 5%-25%. Seems straight foward, if not too easy to beat (most were 5%-15%). If the beastie rolls it's MR or less it's not affected. Hold on sec cowboy. It's based on 11th lvl of magic use. What that means is: take your caster lvl, say 5, subtract it from 11 and multiply the difference by 5, then add that number to the beasties MR. So, for a 5th lvl caster casting against MR 15% the actual MR is 45%.

And that's why we got "roll 1d20, apply bonuses and penalties, and reach the DC" for everything. :smallbiggrin:

Kaervaslol
2010-07-04, 08:25 AM
What is wrong with different experience tables for different classes?

Yora
2010-07-04, 08:28 AM
Makes multiclassing very complicated.

Lapak
2010-07-04, 08:28 AM
To the OP: I played in a 1e campaign recently; there's no reason you can't get a game started if can find some like-minded players. And they are out there.

To the person who said that someone should give the old rules the 'Pathfinder treatment;' you're going to want to look at Labyrinth Lord (http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html) with the Advanced addition and/or OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/).

Matthew
2010-07-04, 08:47 AM
Uh, huh. I remember back in around 2001 I found myself missing AD&D, mainly as a result of reading Knights of the Dinner Table. I restarted my old campaign and got back to playing. Later on I found out about D20/3e, dabbled a bit with it and decided it was not a good replacement for AD&D for me. Then I discovered OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Castles & Crusades, and eventually Swords & Wizardry. All great ways of seeing previous edition rule sets supported, though I think OSRIC is my favourite. I also discovered Dragonsfoot and signed up to their forums, great site and great resources. Last week I went along to a games night at a local game shop, played an hour of D20/4e and then ran a two hour session of AD&D for the same players, which went down a storm.

The long and short of it is if you want to talk about AD&D there are great sites out there to do so, and loads of creative people working on third party material; if you want to play AD&D it need not be as hard as you might imagine. Do I miss AD&D as "D&D", sort of I guess. To be honest, I would not want to see a big corporation take an interest in it again, as the game is really owned by the fans these days, and that is how I prefer it.

oxybe
2010-07-04, 09:01 AM
Y'know what I miss? The ceiling monster, floor monster, and ooze-that-pretends-to-be-a-wall monster.

"Hello adventurer. You walk into the room. That's when the floor starts to fight with the ceiling about who gets to eat you. While they fight you sneak along the wall, hoping to escape...only to find out the wall's already starting to digest you the moment you touch it. Adventurer, I hope you've enjoyed your stay in the Room of Death. Remember to fill out your comment card."

Thank you, Monster Manuals...

oh the room of doom.

in yon goblin burrow, you enter the room. you see several chests and barrels among the stalagmites & stalactites. in the barrels are swords & axes, obviously made for goblins. you see a few dark cloaks hanging on crudely made hooks on the walls

PC walks up...

HA HA HA HA! the floor grabs you, the walls come alive, the stalactites fall from the ceiling, the stalagmites whip out tentacles at you, the barrels and chest start crawling towards you, the weapons skitter out of the barrels and leap at you, the cloaks take flight and attack you. then the ceiling falls on you.

oh and the room eats you.

Beelzebub1111
2010-07-04, 09:11 AM
I cant say if you are misremembering or not, but this claim is NOT supported by the rules.
Weapons speeds lay between 2 (for very fast) and 10 (for very slow weapons as an intended disadvantage). The longsword is in the middle ground with 5. Now for magic weapons this number is reduced be the weapons +.
Casting time for arcane spells is for the most time equal to their spell level, cleric spells a bit higher (to represent that whole "praying and chanting" stuff). The higher casting times of higher level spells is an intended disadvantage of these powerfull magics. Either way the highest castig time is 9 (save for the seldom 1 round casting times).
Now lets take a look on "monster" initiatives. If they use spells or weapons they use exactly the same weapon speeds and casting times as the pcs. So, for weapon using and casting enemies your claim is clearly wrong.
Enemies with natural weapons have the following speeds:
tiny: 0
small and medium: 3
large: 6
huge: 9
gargantuan: 12
(not sure about the names; I only know the german translations of them)
Ok, tiny, small and medium creatures are desinged to be fast. But so is a PC with a dagger (speed 2) or with a longsword +2 (speed 3) or a wizard casting a spell from the levels 1 - 4 (casting time 1 - 4).
Large creatures are definately on the "slow" side of initiative and large and gargantuan creature are almost guaranteed to go last.

Conclusion: by looking at the actual rules, your statement is completely false.
Maybe your group messed up something or used some weird housrules.

I need to have a little talk with my DM



If you mean that the save DC was in most cases 20, I would say it a desing choice and a matter of taste. I see the merits of both systems (for the most time constant DCs vs. wildly fluctuating DCs).

My problem with it is that it's just as easy to resist a fireball as it is a Meteor Swam, or a Flesh to Stone, as it is Charm person. and it's all the same number that you have to beat depending on your level. And at a certain point (with magic items of course) if you can only fail on a one or two.


You are either misremebering or your gruop didnt handel it according to the rules.
For the rules beeing concerned your statement is clearly wrong.

again, I must have a chat with my DM. How is HP for dual-classed demihumans handled?



Damage to abilities was very rare. The methods for recover varied according to the nature of the loss. Possible methods included: cure disease, remove curse, restoration and heal. Only in extremely rare cases it could only be recovered with a wish.
So you are probably misrembering.

Then perhaps we encounter the demihuman vampires a bit too often.



Sooooo much not a fault of the rules. This is a problem with the DM.
The 2e DMG even suggests that the overwhelming majority of NPCs are level 0 classless'.

Perhaps an exageration on my part...but what you're saying is that most modules with wizards in them DON'T have them able to cast at least 1 ninth level spell per day?

Another thing I don't miss. Having to save for all of your magic items whenever you fail a saving throw. +5 shield? It's slag now! Bet you didn't know a bag of holding could be crushed! say goodbye to all your wands, potions and money.

Kurald Galain
2010-07-04, 09:15 AM
but what you're saying is that most modules with wizards in them DON'T have them able to cast at least 1 ninth level spell per day?
Yes. In the Forgotten Realms, we do get archmages everywhere; most other campaign settings are more sensible on the matter.



Another thing I don't miss. Having to save for all of your magic items whenever you fail a saving throw.
I'm reasonably sure that only happens if you roll an 1 on your save, and only to certain kinds of items (e.g. a fireball would only affect flammable items).

Beelzebub1111
2010-07-04, 10:23 AM
I'm reasonably sure that only happens if you roll an 1 on your save, and only to certain kinds of items (e.g. a fireball would only affect flammable items).

Nope, I looked in the DMG to confirm this, it's whenever you fail a save, your items make saving throws based on the material they are made out of plus any bonuses. If a 1 is rolled, they're destroyed no matter what.

lyko555
2010-07-04, 10:44 AM
Castles and crusades is adnd reworked its the same game and you can even use the old source books if you want they all fit in seemlessly. Theres a ton of new material out there you just have to find it. so once again.
Castles and crusades

Castles and crusades

Castles and crusades

Castles and crusades

Castles and crusades

Castles and crusades

Chainsaw Hobbit
2010-07-04, 10:49 AM
Or his friends just don't like playing RPGs.

That's pretty much it.

I also checked out some of the alternative RPGs and now I want to try HackMaster.

erikun
2010-07-04, 11:27 AM
again, I must have a chat with my DM. How is HP for dual-classed demihumans handled?
You are misremembering something, or possibly mistaking the terms.

Dual-classing is something only humans are capable of. It is taking full levels of one class, then taking full levels of a different class later. A human Fighter 10/Wizard 3, for example, would first gain experience for 10 levels of fighter, change to a wizard, and then gain experience for 3 levels of wizard. I believe you keep the HP from your first class in this case, so the d10+CON for the fighter levels, but only d4 for any wizard levels above 10th.

Multi-classing is something demihumans did. It is taking levels in more than one class simultaneously. You divide the HP of each class by the number of classes you were taking. An elven Fighter/Wizard gains d10/2 HP every time they level up in fighter, and d4/2 HP every time they level in wizard. A Fighter/Thief/Wizard would gain d10/3, d6/3, and d4/3 at every level up.

Pollen
2010-07-04, 11:38 AM
Don't miss it exactly, but that's because I went back to the good bits and have stayed there since. Haven't seen a hex or worked out exactly which direction my PC's pointing in at the end of every move for a couple of years. Long may it continue :smallsmile:

Beelzebub1111
2010-07-04, 12:00 PM
You are misremembering something, or possibly mistaking the terms.

Dual-classing is something only humans are capable of. It is taking full levels of one class, then taking full levels of a different class later. A human Fighter 10/Wizard 3, for example, would first gain experience for 10 levels of fighter, change to a wizard, and then gain experience for 3 levels of wizard. I believe you keep the HP from your first class in this case, so the d10+CON for the fighter levels, but only d4 for any wizard levels above 10th.

Multi-classing is something demihumans did. It is taking levels in more than one class simultaneously. You divide the HP of each class by the number of classes you were taking. An elven Fighter/Wizard gains d10/2 HP every time they level up in fighter, and d4/2 HP every time they level in wizard. A Fighter/Thief/Wizard would gain d10/3, d6/3, and d4/3 at every level up.

I got the terminology backwards, My DM has been rolling HP at full for multi-classing, I'll bring it up with him.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-04, 12:01 PM
I am as shocked and offended as you are. :smallbiggrin:I'll edit it out then.

Gametime
2010-07-04, 12:14 PM
Never played AD&D and have no particular desire to, but I do miss the feeling of being new to a game. There's really no way to recapture that sort of thing.

NotScaryBats
2010-07-04, 12:20 PM
I played 2nd edition, so am unsure if I'm cool enough to post here, but I miss:
percentile strength (fighters with 18 str would roll a d100 to see how good their 18 str was - 18[00] was the best)
those little brown, paperback "complete" books
Tony DiTerlizzi's art
The Monster Manual having things like Ecology and Habitat/Society so I'd know what the monster was supposed to be, rather than just what it could do in combat. Sometimes I don't know if a monster is supposed to be an underdark creature or what, nowadays.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-04, 12:32 PM
What I miss more from AD&D is the general feel. They created interesting gameworlds, first and foremost, and then mechanics, balance and other crap.

But, even if 3.x/Pathfinder is my election of choice, I see how 2ed authors placed a rule knowing exactly why it was there (see, as an example, how difficult is casting in combat in 3.x and AD&D).

Moff Chumley
2010-07-04, 12:39 PM
I miss sitting on my bed, surrounded with splatbooks, shouting at my DM on the phone about what rules I could or could not use.
I miss the limitless variety and the possibilities JUST in character creation.
I miss seeing what cheese I could sneak past the DM.
I miss all the houserules and fixes.
I miss all the ways the DM thwarted my wizard.
I miss the times my DM let my monk do crazy things, because they were cool.
I miss reading Tippy's epic posts about Tippyverse.
I miss spending entire sessions refluffing things.
I miss trying to level up just so I could shank Elminster.
I miss attempting to, and failing at, powergaming.


Have I made my point, yet?

arrowhen
2010-07-04, 01:51 PM
I miss playing with people whose idea of fantasy came from novels, rather than anime or video games.

oxybe
2010-07-04, 02:28 PM
anime (and we're talking about a VERY specific genre & subgenre of anime at that) & videogames (again, a specific branch of videogames) are hardly less fantastic then the crazy stuff in the mythologies many of those novels rip off.

Matthew
2010-07-04, 02:36 PM
anime (and we're talking about a VERY specific genre & subgenre of anime at that) & videogames (again, a specific branch of videogames) are hardly less fantastic then the crazy stuff in the mythologies many of those novels rip off.

Not really the point, though, I would imagine. Either those things are the same, or they are different. If they are different, then one could plausibly prefer one to the other, and the games that result.

nyarlathotep
2010-07-04, 02:39 PM
I miss playing with people whose idea of fantasy came from novels, rather than anime or video games.

I miss characters being based off of good anime and novels, rather than new crap like Bleach and Eragon.

Mr.Moron
2010-07-04, 02:44 PM
Not really the point, though, I would imagine. Either those things are the same, or they are different. If they are different, then one could plausibly prefer one to the other, and the games that result.

I think the problem with the statement is that it's comparing a very wide category of things, Novels to two other very wide categories of things, Anime and Video games. As a result of that, it doesn't say very much.


When things are too much like "Video games" are they too much like Final Fantasy VIII or too much like Shining Force II?

When things are too much like "Anime" are they too much like Naruto or too much like Serei no Moribito?

Math_Mage
2010-07-04, 02:45 PM
I miss characters being based off of good anime and novels, rather than new crap like Bleach and Eragon.

Agreed. Himura Kenshin and Vlad Taltos >>> Kurosaki Ichigo and Eragon Shadeslayer.

arrowhen
2010-07-04, 02:53 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking anime or games at all, I just like my gaming grounded in written fantasy rather than cinematic fantasy.

oxybe
2010-07-04, 03:10 PM
Not really the point, though, I would imagine. Either those things are the same, or they are different. If they are different, then one could plausibly prefer one to the other, and the games that result.

yeah but it's like saying "novels suck" when all you've read is "twilight". or "cartoons suck" when all you've seen is "that one Seth MacFarlane show"(american dad/family guy/cleveland show: same show, different cast). or "movies suck" when all you've seen is the Street Fighter movie. or D&D movie.

the anime (which the word itself is shorthand for animation, ie:cartoons) that generally gets ported to north america is the usual flashy shounen slop that's popular for the same reason micheal bay keeps getting movie deals: big explosions, special effects, little actual content and it's a repeatable plot that lends itself to some success.

same with videogames, yeah some are pretty over over the top like God of War or Bayonetta, but a lot of them really aren't that bad (the Suikoden series, at least the first two since i've yet to play 3-5, are definitely fantasy but on the total opposite spectrum that GoW as is Shadow of the Colossus and other games).

i've seen many bad protagonists come from novels. i'd rather have a PC inspired by the nameless hero of Suikoden any day over Bella of Twilight.

Math_Mage
2010-07-04, 03:16 PM
yeah but it's like saying "novels suck" when all you've read is "twilight". or "cartoons suck" when all you've seen is "that one Seth MacFarlane show"(american dad/family guy/cleveland show: same show, different cast). or "movies suck" when all you've seen is the Street Fighter movie. or D&D movie.

Thankfully, this isn't what arrowhen is getting at.

arrowhen
2010-07-04, 03:26 PM
I'm not saying one medium is better than another, I'm saying different media are *different* in terms of structure, pacing, character development, etc.

Matthew
2010-07-04, 03:30 PM
I think the problem with the statement is that it's comparing a very wide category of things, Novels to two other very wide categories of things, Anime and Video games. As a result of that, it doesn't say very much.

When things are too much like "Video games" are they too much like Final Fantasy VIII or too much like Shining Force II?

When things are too much like "Anime" are they too much like Naruto or too much like Serei no Moribito?

I agree, but it is not saying nothing either. The person posting that opinion likely has a fair idea of what he means when he refers to the separate categories, and when a generalised statement is made the next step is to narrow down the meaning if you wish to know what he intends.



*snip*

Right, but that is assuming a lot about what the poster is saying. As we can see from the above responses he does have something specific in mind about the difference, whether the shorthand is technically accurate or not.

arrowhen
2010-07-04, 03:30 PM
And I probably should have said "tv and movies" instead of "anime", it's just that there's *vastly* more animated fantasy out there than there is live-action fantasy.

elonin
2010-07-04, 04:08 PM
I do have a bit of nostalgia for Ad&d. Some of the things that were a pain were no skills, excepting non weapon proficiencies; the mishmash of initiative dice that would get rolled, the lack of cohesiveness that led to psionics being broken, and demiclassing versus multiclassing rules.

Shademan
2010-07-04, 05:38 PM
Agreed. Himura Kenshin and Vlad Taltos >>> Kurosaki Ichigo and Eragon Shadeslayer.

Shadeslayer!? *looks at my name* that racist! (apparantly shde is a race now)

srsly, tho':
I'm a 3.5 guy. always has been. but A friend had me play second edition. Never quite understood the rules... but I liked the feel of it. I kinda felt like one of those funny looking adventurers (well with my good character, anyhow) from those old art pieces in the books and magazines.

Surfing HalfOrc
2010-07-04, 06:23 PM
I don't have to miss AD&D, I still play it! And reasonable facsimilies thereof.

Through the magic of eBay, I've completely restored my D&D collection that was lost while I was in the Navy. I've also added quite a bit to it, my budget as a 45 year old being quite a bit higher than it was as a 15 year old Junior High student!

And I've also discovered the Old School Revival, with Labyrinth Lord and Advanced Edition Characters, OSRIC, and Swords and Wizardry. All three have free .pdf editions, and bring back "The Good Old Days" of when D&D was a new gme, and it didn't need a board!

I also play 3.x, but not as much as I used to. My son (9) has decided he likes D&D, and prefers the simpler rules of AD&D/LL/OSRIC/etc over the splatbook prone 3.x, and while my budget is higher, I just haven't seen anything to convince me I MUST HAVE 4th Ed. At least not yet... I also putter around a bit with Pathfinder, Paizo's 3.75 version of 3.x.

Jorda75
2010-07-04, 06:39 PM
I often get nostalgic about AD&D, and I realize those days will never return. :smallfrown:
I miss THAC0 and race-class restrictions.


THAC0 was one of the things that kept me and many new players from attempting AD&D, it was unnecessarily complicated and was counter-intuitive to ever other rolling method in the game.

Race-class restriction has got to be the worst rule ever to exist in Dungeons and Dragons. My elven archer can't reach level 20? My halfling wizard will never get level 9 spells? Race-class restrictions limited you to either: A) Playing your races favored class, or B) Playing a human. Any rule that restricts player choice, and in my opinion player fun, to this level should never have existed.

I was never huge into AD&D but I played a few games and while I conquered THAC0 in time I never got over the insanely poor decision to limit levels based on race. I say good riddance!

P.S. In our group, we did indeed remove race-class level restrictions, but not all the DM's I hoped to play with were so understanding.

elonin
2010-07-04, 07:16 PM
I thought the race class limitations were a good thing. That put a mechanic behind the fluff that made real differences between the races. From what I saw from playing a number of groups ended up not using those any more than the weapon vs ac modifier chart. I'll also defend the class minimums as helping to point characters away from disastrous choices (for example fighter with a strength of 4) and allow for stronger classes for example ranger.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-04, 07:21 PM
I thought the race class limitations were a good thing. That put a mechanic behind the fluff that made real differences between the races. From what I saw from playing a number of groups ended up not using those any more than the weapon vs ac modifier chart. I'll also defend the class minimums as helping to point characters away from disastrous choices (for example fighter with a strength of 4) and allow for stronger classes for example ranger.And just why can't I play a dwarven druid?

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 07:22 PM
And just why can't I play a dwarven druid?

Because all Dwarves hate trees of course. Haven't you been reading OOTS?:smalltongue:

arrowhen
2010-07-04, 07:30 PM
I remember when THAC0 was an exciting new time-saving technology that replaced having to look up your to-hit numbers on a friggin' chart.

Captain Six
2010-07-04, 07:33 PM
And just why can't I play a dwarven druid?

Because dwarves just don't do that, they don't think about it and they don't even want to. Asking "why not?" is human thinking, hence why humans are so flexible in classes. Or maybe they have trouble with the apathy inherent in druidism being strong minded as they are.


Because all Dwarves hate trees of course. Haven't you been reading OOTS?

Because I love arguing in general I will also add that mountains are nature too. So are oceans, deserts, plains, tundra and many other non-tree related realms.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 07:36 PM
Because dwarves just don't do that, they don't think about it and they don't even want to. Asking "why not?" is human thinking, hence why humans are so flexible in classes. Or maybe they have trouble with the apathy inherent in druidism being strong minded as they are.

So, humans are the only ones who have the ability to think of being anything other than their favored class?



Because I love arguing in general I will also add that mountains are nature too. So are oceans, deserts, plains, tundra and many other non-tree related realms.

I was just making a joke.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-04, 07:37 PM
Because all Dwarves hate trees of course. Haven't you been reading OOTS?The Underdark has Nature, too.

See those glowy 'shrooms that make you feel funny when you breathe near 'em? They're natural. And probably organic, too, which is even better.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 07:38 PM
I'm adding a smiley to the end of my comment. I keep forgetting that tone of voice doesn't translate well through the net.

Matthew
2010-07-04, 07:41 PM
So, humans are the only ones who have the ability to think of being anything other than their favoured class?

It is more like "whatever reason is given in the fluff". Bear in mind these are not hard and fast rules, they are just guidelines for what amounts to Greyhawk. The difference between AD&D and D20 is minor in that respect, since D20/3e presents the concept of race restricted classes as an optional rule, and AD&D presents the possibility of of not restricting classes by race (and removing level limits) as optional rules. In short, if you want to play a dwarf druid and your game master is fine with that, go right ahead, those are going to be the stipulations in either incarnation regardless.

Captain Six
2010-07-04, 07:43 PM
So, humans are the only ones who have the ability to think of being anything other than their favored class?

Maybe. We can't meet up with real elves and dwarves to see but in every D&D edition I've read says that humans are the best at it. So to a degree yes. I'm not sure how strict I would follow that rule but I see where it is coming from and I can see its place in a campaign.

John Campbell
2010-07-04, 08:20 PM
My problem with it is that it's just as easy to resist a fireball as it is a Meteor Swam, or a Flesh to Stone, as it is Charm person. and it's all the same number that you have to beat depending on your level. And at a certain point (with magic items of course) if you can only fail on a one or two.

That's not a bug; it's a feature. That's one of the reasons that magic-users in AD&D couldn't just stand around pressing the "I Win" button the way wizards in 3.5 can. Casters couldn't optimize for save DCs, the gap between weak saves and strong ones was much narrower, and it was harder to target an opponent's weak save. In the high levels, everyone had pretty good odds of saving against whatever you threw at them (Fighters most of all; they started with weak saves, but ended up with the best saves across the board), which balanced the power of save-or-lose spells with the low chance of the target actually failing to save. Blasting was relatively more useful... half damage on a successful save was better than no effect from a save-and-laugh. And Fighters were the most resistant to HP damage from those, too...

I miss saving throws that were an effective defense.

(See also my earlier comment about missing rules written by people who understood why they were like that.)


And anyone who's going to complain about THAC0 should consider for a moment that my friends and I were playing with it without a problem at eight years old.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-04, 08:38 PM
Yes, a time when your brain is meant to be learning new things and systems.
THAC0 isn't that complicated, but it is more complicated then it needs to be.
Add all your modifiers together, and if the number is bigger then the other number, you hit. What more do you need for a game of D&D's granularity?
Even Rogue used this simple system.

Matthew
2010-07-04, 09:11 PM
Yes, a time when your brain is meant to be learning new things and systems.
THAC0 isn't that complicated, but it is more complicated then it needs to be.

Add all your modifiers together, and if the number is bigger then the other number, you hit. What more do you need for a game of D&D's granularity?
Even Rogue used this simple system.

That is how THAC0 works. 1d20 + modifiers => THAC0. The bit that the player's are not supposed to see is AC, which is a hidden modifier that can either be added to the roll or deducted from THAC0. What is confusing about THAC0 is when you try to modify it to reflect bonuses and penalties, since those then become the inverse of what they were. That is to say, +1 to hit = −1 THAC0. From the player's point of view, that is certainly counter-intuitive, but then they do not need to be doing that.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-04, 09:18 PM
If you want to keep it secretive, you just tell the DM, and they tell you if you hit or not. THAC0 is an extra step not needed. For something as common as attack rolls, that extra step seems a foolish design choice.

Kish
2010-07-04, 09:19 PM
- Race/Class restrictions. Everyone is equal, but not everyone is identical.
I hope you mean, "Everyone is equal, but humans are either massively more equal than others (if racial level restrictions aren't house-ruled out) or massively less equal than others (if racial level restrictions are house-ruled out)." 'Cause if not, your nostalgia is interfering with the accuracy of your perception.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-04, 09:59 PM
I could have sworn someone actually did that, but I wouldn't trust my memory of that too much.

I wasn't really embroiled in earlier editions because of my parents and reasons that are not board rules-friendly, so I'm not hugely 'in the loop" about such matters.

I think it was called Hackmaster? O.O

DracoDei
2010-07-04, 11:17 PM
Most of this I am not going to touch with a standard-issue 10' pole. There is, however, one item that I must take as a personal challenge... at least a little.


I miss stupid, hilarious, awesome monsters like the Flumph and the Gazebo.
What, Vorpal Tribble, Bhu, and myself aren't enough for you? We even take requests! (at least I THINK the other two do... I know I would at least try.)

I actually statted out Beige Dragons, and later their opposites, the Disco Dragons.

Giraffe-a-pumps (although originally my grandfather's invention) were specifically complimented as being reminiscent of 2nd Edition.

For the Room of Death I offer a Lord of Rest (preferably in an a-typical racial alignment)... now the bed in the room wants to kill you too.

I have squirrels that make bricks appear out of no-where and fall on PCs heads for crying out loud!

NotScaryBats
2010-07-04, 11:18 PM
I fail to see how THAC0 is difficult to understand.
My THAC0 is 15, I roll a 12. That hits AC 3 or above. Simple.
Oh, the monster's AC is 0? I miss then.

Mystic Muse
2010-07-04, 11:20 PM
I fail to see how THAC0 is difficult to understand.
My THAC0 is 15, I roll a 12. That hits AC 3 or above. Simple.
Oh, the monster's AC is 0? I miss then.

So you subtract your roll from your THAC0 and if the monsters AC is equal to or higher than that number you hit?

And it's probably hard to understand when you're coming from a 3.5 game where high AC is good and low AC is bad.

NotScaryBats
2010-07-04, 11:26 PM
THAC0 means To Hit Armor Class Zero. So, in that example, a 15 hits AC 0. A 14 hits AC 1, etc.
Yes, its true that Low AC is the best (-12 is the max) and high AC is bad (10 is worst).

Otogi
2010-07-05, 12:22 AM
A quick question for some of the good ol' AD&D players here: Do any of you not like 3.X, but like 4e?

elonin
2010-07-05, 12:37 AM
And just why can't I play a dwarven druid?

Not that I have anything in particular against it but that goes against the flavor of that race and that class. For some reason the being a race that tends to live underground isn't compatible with a woodsy class.

For personal taste I've played adnd and do play 3.5 and will not play 4e. Just my personal inclination.

Lycanthromancer
2010-07-05, 12:58 AM
Not that I have anything in particular against it but that goes against the flavor of that race and that class. For some reason the being a race that tends to live underground isn't compatible with a woodsy class.

For personal taste I've played adnd and do play 3.5 and will not play 4e. Just my personal inclination.Why do druids have to live in the woods? Nature exists everywhere. In the forest, underwater, on the plains, on the tundra, in underground caves and caverns.

Why can't a dwarf care for the natural life that exists where he lives, under the mountains?

Gametime
2010-07-05, 12:58 AM
Not that I have anything in particular against it but that goes against the flavor of that race and that class. For some reason the being a race that tends to live underground isn't compatible with a woodsy class.



In other words, AD&D plays classic fantasy tropes straight to the hilt. All elves live in forests, all dwarves live underground, all druids are neutral guardians of nature, all paladins are morally upright champions of the downtrodden, and so on. The only exception is humans, who can live anywhere and do anything.

This is neither a definitively good nor definitively bad thing, but whether by cause or effect I find people who enjoy AD&D tend to be the same people who enjoy classical, unsubverted fantasy tropes.


Why do druids have to live in the woods? Nature exists everywhere. In the forest, underwater, on the plains, on the tundra, in underground caves and caverns.

Why can't a dwarf care for the natural life that exists where he lives, under the mountains?

The fungus is always greener
In somebody else's (underground) lake
You think about goin' up there
But that is a big mistake!

Just look at the world around you
Right here on the cavern floor
Such wonderful things surround you
What more is you lookin' for?

Under the ground! Under the ground!
Darling, it's finer here with the miners, take it from me!

...ahem.

huttj509
2010-07-05, 02:01 AM
I fail to see how THAC0 is difficult to understand.
My THAC0 is 15, I roll a 12. That hits AC 3 or above. Simple.
Oh, the monster's AC is 0? I miss then.

What always got my group was things like a +1 bonus to armor, was actually a -1 AC. That flip there just didn't sit well for us.

Edit: What we ended up doing was changing thac0 to a bonus to the roll (20-thac0 = bonus), and adjusting armor class to match (20-AC = target number). So all bonuses to THAC0 were instead added to the hit roll instead of subtracted from THAC0 or something, and bonuses to armor were added instead of subtracted.

So when 3.0 rolled round, it was amusing that they did the exact same thing.

Kurald Galain
2010-07-05, 02:03 AM
THAC0 was one of the things that kept me and many new players from attempting AD&D, it was unnecessarily complicated and was counter-intuitive to ever other rolling method in the game.
Come on, it's basic subtraction! Sure, the rule could have been easier, but the difficulty of THAC0 is vastly overstated on forums.


A quick question for some of the good ol' AD&D players here: Do any of you not like 3.X, but like 4e?
While I'm sure such players exist, I haven't met them. The notion that 4E is "similar" to 1E or 2E is just marketing hype.

nyjastul69
2010-07-05, 02:06 AM
I remember when THAC0 was an exciting new time-saving technology that replaced having to look up your to-hit numbers on a friggin' chart.

Applaudes. :smallcool: Well said.

Shademan
2010-07-05, 03:29 AM
THAC0 is prolly all nice and well for people who don't have major issues with numbers and math. for people like us, looking it up in a chart is a lifesaver

hamishspence
2010-07-05, 03:55 AM
The fungus is always greener
In somebody else's (underground) lake
You think about goin' up there
But that is a big mistake!

Just look at the world around you
Right here on the cavern floor
Such wonderful things surround you
What more is you lookin' for?

Under the ground! Under the ground!
Darling, it's finer here with the miners, take it from me!

...ahem.

:smallbiggrin:

I do think "reveres Nature" can really be done for any natural environment. Did Dark Sun have "desert druids"?

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-05, 04:09 AM
While I'm sure such players exist, I haven't met them. The notion that 4E is "similar" to 1E or 2E is just marketing hype.

Well, AFAIK, now wotc is trying to associate 4th edition to Basic (BECMI), seeing the box of the essentials..

hamishspence
2010-07-05, 04:47 AM
The 5 alignment system somewhat resembles the Eric Holmes Basic D&D alignment system- only with "Good" and "Evil" instead of "CG" and "LE"

Both had the five points, plus Neutral.

fusilier
2010-07-05, 04:55 AM
In my opinion all versions of D&D suck! However, beggars can't be choosers, and I found myself pining for AD&D a few months ago. Somethings haven't changed too much from my perspective. I typically don't bother to read the rules, and just listen to what other players (or DM) say. Then, if what I think they are saying is stupid, I check up the rules, usually to find that they are indeed correct.

Here's what I miss:

I miss not having to wade through pages of rules to understand what each of my fighter's attacks do, and on every turn make a decision about which particular attack to use (4e).

I miss AD&D style stat-checks -- yes it was confusing that you wanted to roll low, but it used the whole spectrum of the stat, not just the even numbers.

Perhaps it was naivete, but I miss not even thinking about ensuring my character was "balanced" or "optimized." Now I am subjected to endless complaining from the DM and other players, when I choose a particular weapon, or feat, purely for character background.

Most of all, I think I miss the feel of the game. AD&D reminded me more of medieval style fantasy, and with my great interest in history, I felt I understood it better. Later editions seem to move away from that genre. While this is obviously related to how the DM runs the game, the books themselves influenced this attitude.

Matthew
2010-07-05, 05:10 AM
If you want to keep it secretive, you just tell the DM, and they tell you if you hit or not. THAC0 is an extra step not needed. For something as common as attack rolls, that extra step seems a foolish design choice.

If you are really interested in whys and wherefores of THAC0, then I recommend this thread: Why THAC0? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113845).



A quick question for some of the good ol' AD&D players here: Do any of you not like 3.X, but like 4e?

Not particularly. I think both are fine, but neither is my cup of tea. I thought D20/3e felt the most like AD&D if that is helpful.

Procyonpi
2010-07-05, 05:17 AM
Don't they have these for 3.5?


I'm oretty sure they DON'T have those monsters in 3.5... both from having read the monster manuals a couple of times, and from the fact that the whole Flumph gag in the comic started because they were in the chamber of monsters not updated to 3.0.

Eldan
2010-07-05, 05:21 AM
There is the Tome of Horrors, discussed in length here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144804), which is a free conversion of a lot of AD&D monsters. Among them the flumph, I think.

potatocubed
2010-07-05, 07:13 AM
A quick question for some of the good ol' AD&D players here: Do any of you not like 3.X, but like 4e?

I used to be one of these, but that was before I had run enough 4e to become familiar with its flaws, and after I had run enough 3.x to be thoroughly sick of builds and everything that goes with them. Now I like all three games more or less equally - each does different things well and badly.

The only similarity I can think of between AD&D and 4e is that in both games PCs and NPCs are generated by different rules. (And operated by slightly different rules.) Compare and contrast with 3.x, where it is expected that all enemies obey the same rules as the PCs.

Of course, this similarity is probably invisible if you haven't GMed both systems - from the players' point of view, the only thing they might find similar between the two systems is the occasional cry of "Wait, it does what?" followed by maniacal GM laughter. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-07-05, 07:14 AM
I'm oretty sure they DON'T have those monsters in 3.5... both from having read the monster manuals a couple of times, and from the fact that the whole Flumph gag in the comic started because they were in the chamber of monsters not updated to 3.0.

I think an issue of Dungeon updated them (and the Death Dog had been updated in Fiend Folio) but there aren't any WoTC 3.0 or 3.5 books with the flumph.

NotScaryBats
2010-07-05, 09:31 AM
I like the fact that 4th edition seems so full of options. A problem d4 hp wizards had in 2nd edition (for my groups) was that they pretty much could magic missile once or twice, then had to rely on their darts / quarterstaff for the rest of the combat, since they ran out of spells.

Its cool that a fighter gets multiple attacks when they're high enough level, but that's pretty much all you could do, turn after turn. I attack. I attack. I attack. 4th allows you to Steel Serpent Strike, Cleave, etc.

I haven't played a whole lot of 4th edition - maybe three months of weekly games or so - but my players and I are really, really enjoying it.

El Dorado
2010-07-05, 10:12 AM
My experience with AD&D is somewhat skewed because my group used lots of house rules but I remember:

My 20th level wizard casting 20d6 fireballs and lightning bolts.
Invisibility lasting 24 hours.
Polymorph Other changing your foe's mind to match that of the creature.
Falling damage from a dispeled fly spell.
Rings of protection providing AC and save bonuses.
Reversible spells (light to darkness, etc)
Friendly fire (no feats to exclude your party from area effects)
Psionics really made you or the bad guy a wild card.
Casting times.
You get hit while, you lose your spell.
Memorizing spells took 15 minutes per spell level. At high levels, the down time for parties waiting for their casters could be days. :smallsmile:

John Campbell
2010-07-05, 10:53 AM
Oh, that reminds me of one:

I miss volume-filling fireballs and bouncing lightning bolts.

SimperingToad
2010-07-05, 11:06 AM
I don't miss it at all. I still play AD&D (oft called 1E), though due to RL issues, the group can only get together once every few months.

What I do miss is the newness. Summer vacation at 11 years old and playing this new game 3-4 times a week, discovering slowly how the rules work, and not caring that we only had 3 books from which to pull adventures (and for a while, only the MM and PHB). It was all we needed.

Years later, as I have learned more about the reasons the rules were made as they were, I have a greater appreciation of the game. So much so, that I sold off my 3E books last year with no regrets.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-05, 11:12 AM
The 5 alignment system somewhat resembles the Eric Holmes Basic D&D alignment system- only with "Good" and "Evil" instead of "CG" and "LE"

Both had the five points, plus Neutral.

Didn't know that. I played the Moldvay set, up to Master (we didn't have the Immortal :smallfrown:).

I rememeber there were 3 alignments: Law, Neutrality, Chaos.

Gametime
2010-07-05, 11:41 AM
Come on, it's basic subtraction! Sure, the rule could have been easier, but the difficulty of THAC0 is vastly overstated on forums.



I think the problem with THAC0 isn't that it was too difficult, but that it was unnecessarily difficult. Mixing addition and subtraction when it came to bonuses and penalties on your attack roll made the whole thing more of a mess than it needed to be. If they had made it clear that "Low numbers good! High numbers bad!" then I think the confusion would've been significantly lessened.

Matthew
2010-07-05, 11:55 AM
I think the problem with THAC0 isn't that it was too difficult, but that it was unnecessarily difficult. Mixing addition and subtraction when it came to bonuses and penalties on your attack roll made the whole thing more of a mess than it needed to be. If they had made it clear that "Low numbers good! High numbers bad!" then I think the confusion would've been significantly lessened.

It was more like the tendency to write stuff like "+10 bonus to armour class". The basics of the situation are you want "pluses to attack your enemies" and "minuses to attacks against you", which obviously makes sense. THAC0 is the target number, and you want to roll equal or over it, as your character increases in fighting ability the target number gets lower. The problem was sloppy terminology for the most part, as totalling positive and negative modifiers for an attack roll is common to both systems.

Beelzebub1111
2010-07-05, 11:59 AM
My 20th level wizard casting 20d6 fireballs and lightning bolts.

That's a house rule, Caps are still in the 2nd edition rulebooks



Polymorph Other changing your foe's mind to match that of the creature.

Its 3.5 counterpart, Baleful Polymorph, does do that.


If the subject remains in the new form for 24 consecutive hours, it must attempt a Will save. If this save fails, it loses its ability to understand language, as well as all other memories of its previous form, and its Hit Dice and hit points change to match an average creature of its new form. These abilities and statistics return to normal if the effect is later ended.




Rings of protection providing AC and save bonuses.

Unless you wear armor, in which case it only provides the latter. I figure it was smarter to split the ring and the cloak to provide separate bonuses, but to each their own.



Reversible spells (light to darkness, etc)

I'll admit, I miss this one, too.



Friendly fire (no feats to exclude your party from area effects)

And nothing to protect them from Chain Lightning cast a little too close either



Casting times.
You get hit while, you lose your spell.

I really don't, but then again, I play spellcasters. Not to mention that prohibitively long casting times made clerics casting in combat more or less a waste of time, if you had a bastard GM.



Memorizing spells took 15 minutes per spell level. At high levels, the down time for parties waiting for their casters could be days. :smallsmile:

Why is down-time a good thing? I thought that you were supposed to...you know PLAY a GAME.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-05, 12:32 PM
I really don't, but then again, I play spellcasters. Not to mention that prohibitively long casting times made clerics casting in combat more or less a waste of time, if you had a bastard GM.

it was a good way to limit spellcasters, both as PCs and as in gameworld. Moreover, made them more prone to hide behind meleers.



Why is down-time a good thing? I thought that you were supposed to...you know PLAY a GAME.

That's avoid spells being spammed. Casting a spell should be an important act, not a thing you do, then rest, replenish, restart.

Or even assuming this, if the spells are both easier to cast, spellcaster have more options to cast them and avoid melee, spells themselves have less drawbacks (see AD&D gate and 3.5 gate), the gameworld can be damaged.

Lapak
2010-07-05, 12:35 PM
Why is down-time a good thing? I thought that you were supposed to...you know PLAY a GAME.There are a few reasons that caster downtime is a good thing:

1. It adds a higher-level strategic layer to combat resource management. One of the problems people often reference with 3e is the "15 minute adventuring day," where casters alpha-strike everything they run into and head back to recharge. If regaining those spells cost in proportion to how many of them were used, it reduces that behavior quite a bit.

2. Somewhat related, but plot-related time constraints become considerably more potent. There won't always be time to completely change and custom-tailor the wizard's spell loadout if something is just about to happen; you have to go with what's available.

3. Makes casters more vulnerable. It becomes far more realistic to burn through a caster's spells and turn him into a guy with d4 hit dice and a staff if it takes time to regain them on top of merely being rested. A sufficient number of mundane warriors hassling him will eventually kill a wizard who doesn't have a line of retreat to a truly safe place prepared.

4. It encourages a slower pace of gameplay. It's really only since 3e that I've noticed the idea of "less than two game years to go from level 1 to level 20" become prominent. When wizards take a day (or at really high levels, several days) just to regain spells, the idea of adventurers taking a little time off between expeditions gets more readily ingrained. The warrior can craft some weapons, the bard can whip up some cash performing and dig up rumors, the cleric can (gasp!) check in with their religious higher-ups, maybe even do some pastoral work or something. This is actually one of the biggest benefits in my opinion: even if it's just mentioned in passing with no direct mechanical effects ("So, while Bob the Wizard recovers his spells, Joe the Rogue checks in with his thieving brotherhood and Anne the Paladin spends some time building on the Council contacts that merchant arranged for you") it gives the characters more life than if they're just adventuring automatons. It also adds to the verisimilitude of the game world if level-appropriate challenges don't just fall into the character's laps one after another in an endless stream. What does this have to do with wizards? The fact that casters MUST spend a certain amount of downtime encourages both the players and the DM to figure out what everyone else is doing while that happens, and once that gets kicked off, well, the wizard is going to want to do some character-based things too, and that adds to the trend.

John Campbell
2010-07-05, 01:44 PM
4. It encourages a slower pace of gameplay. It's really only since 3e that I've noticed the idea of "less than two game years to go from level 1 to level 20" become prominent.

This is also one of the reasons that the racial level limits aren't really as big a deal as people often make them out to be. In AD&D, progression was much slower, and it was expected to take a good long while for a character to get into the teens, say nothing about level 20... and not everyone was expected to make it. I could count on my fingers the number of PCs that I ever saw reach 20th level in AD&D... and I wouldn't have to use both hands.

When 10th level is a hardened veteran who's starting to look at settling down in retirement with his riches and his followers, and 15th is a really powerful high-level character, the end result of years of regular gaming in a single campaign, the fact that the halfling thief is capped at 17th really doesn't matter that much. It was more a device (a poor one, admittedly) for explaining why elves didn't rule the world than anything that was ever relevant to actual PCs.

I miss players not feeling entitled to achieving world-shattering power by next week at the latest.

Ashiel
2010-07-05, 01:52 PM
I don't miss AD&D, but I have drawn inspiration from it from time to time. For example, I've looked at how fighters worked in 2E, and modified my home games a bit based on some things.

However, since THAC0 always comes up, I think the system was needlessly complicated. The sheer fact it requires people to refute how "not really complicated" it is, is evidence that it was. However, rather than argue whether it was or wasn't, I will simply say...

AC: Add this modifier to 10, and that's your AC.
To Hit: Add this modifier to your d20. If that equals their AC, you hit.

The end. :smalltongue:

Matthew
2010-07-05, 02:07 PM
However, since THAC0 always comes up, I think the system was needlessly complicated. The sheer fact it requires people to refute how "not really complicated" it is, is evidence that it was.

Or evidence that it has become a nice little meme. Perhaps everything that has to be refuted is evidence that refutation itself is invalid? :smalltongue:

I shall simply say...

1d20 + modifiers + AC => THAC0

SimperingToad
2010-07-05, 02:17 PM
As previously mentioned, 8-11 year olds can figure it out. How difficult can THAC0 really be? It's not, nor is that statement evidence of anything. It just is. The problem is not one of complexity, but that some people just dislike working backwards. That doesn't make things complex, it just means some folks don't want to deal with it.

For 1E, it's a simple matter to flip things. Start your AC at 10 and work upwards. Reverse the AC value of creatures in the MM, and reverse the AC values on the combat tables. Done. Can we play now?

Ravens_cry
2010-07-05, 02:18 PM
Or evidence that it has become a nice little meme. Perhaps everything that has to be refuted is evidence that refutation itself is invalid? :smalltongue:

I shall simply say...

1d20 + modifiers + AC => THAC0
Which is more complicated then
1d20 + modifiers ≥ AC?=Hit
1d20 + modiefers < AC = Not Hit
I own the books, 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, 3.0 and 3.5, D&D 4th edition D&D and Pathfinder.
It's not just a meme.

Matthew
2010-07-05, 02:34 PM
Which is more complicated then

1d20 + modifiers ≥ AC?=Hit
1d20 + modifiers < AC = Not Hit

It depends how many modifiers there are. In both cases it is always:

1d20 + modifiers ≥ Target Number

In any case, nobody is saying it is not slightly more complicated, just that it is not unnecessarily complicated or, indeed, complicated.



I own the books, 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, 3.0 and 3.5, D&D 4th edition D&D and Pathfinder. It's not just a meme.

As do I, and there are a lot of people who will say "THAC0 is overcomplicated" without ever having played any AD&D before (except maybe Baldur's Gate). It may not just be a meme, but it is a meme in addition to whatever truth there may be to it (which is very little). Some people do find one or the other methodologies difficult to grasp, which appears to be to do with the way they understand numbers.

SimperingToad
2010-07-05, 02:37 PM
EDIT: Whoops! I see what happened there. :smallredface:

Ravens_cry
2010-07-05, 02:38 PM
It depends how many modifiers there are. In both cases it is always:

1d20 + modifiers ≥ Target Number

In any case, nobody is saying it is not slightly more complicated, just that it is not unnecessarily complicated or, indeed, complicated.

Slightly more complicated for something as common as an attack roll is still too complicated.

Matthew
2010-07-05, 02:40 PM
Slightly more complicated for something as common as an attack roll is still too complicated.

Too complicated for whom? is the question. I find both methods equally easy, but my girlfriend [edit]fiancé finds THAC0 easier and you find (presumably) ascending AC easier. There is nothing really more to it than that, except perhaps weight of numbers inclining the system designers towards one methodology or another.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-05, 02:57 PM
Why AD&D threads always derail toward THAC0?

Matthew
2010-07-05, 03:02 PM
Why AD&D threads always derail toward THAC0?

'Tis the nature of things. :smallwink:

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-05, 03:08 PM
'Tis the nature of things. :smallwink:

*sniff* :smallfrown:

But.. but.. I want to continue bashing casters mechanics changes!

*removes a tear with his fingertip*

fusilier
2010-07-05, 03:08 PM
Or evidence that it has become a nice little meme. Perhaps everything that has to be refuted is evidence that refutation itself is invalid? :smalltongue:

I shall simply say...

1d20 + modifiers + AC => THAC0

Hmm. My recollection is that as players we rarely knew what the enemy's AC was (at least not at first). So more typically we would roll the die, and subtract our THAC0 from the result, to get which AC we hit. Arguably subtraction is more difficult than addition, but I think the whole thing gets kind of silly.

THAC0 is not that complicated. It may be more complicated than the current system, but it's really marginal. You can play the overcomplicated card to logical extremes of silliness: How about simply declaring whether or not you hit or miss? That's a lot less complicated than even rolling a die. :-) When it comes down to it, a certain amount of detail is appreciated. How much is going to down to personal preferences.

I can tell you right now, that if AD&D was too complicated for you, D&D (--EDIT-- i.e. 3e and 4e) wouldn't be too far behind. Try West End Games Star Wars (now the D6 system), if you want to see a much more streamlined gaming system. The first system I played was WEG's Star Wars, and it was so much easier to learn when compared to AD&D. Probably part of the reason I never cared much for any of the D&D systems.

What I did appreciate about AD&D, and didn't realize it until the later versions came out, was that the system was thought out and pretty consistent. I felt that some of the design decisions made in subsequent versions were done simply to have a familiar look, but lack function.

Skaven
2010-07-05, 05:53 PM
I miss rules that were written by people who understood why they were that way in the first place.
I miss not having every aspect of the game bound up and wound up in rules that dictate what you can do... and, more often, what you can't.

Ah, I like and agree with this set.

Sometimes, magic needs to stay magical. They seem to have forgotten that.

JadedDM
2010-07-05, 07:01 PM
As do I, and there are a lot of people who will say "THAC0 is overcomplicated" without ever having played any AD&D before (except maybe Baldur's Gate).

Ha, the part that annoys me are the people who inevitably come forward to announce that THAC0 is like, SO COMPLICATED, you guys, even the nation's top mathematicians couldn't fathom it!

(That's not an exaggeration, I've actually heard people claim that mathematicians aren't smart enough to understand the supposedly endlessly complicated gordion knot known as THAC0).

To which my response is, 'dude, seriously, it's just simple subtraction. You're making yourself look like a moron.'

sambo.
2010-07-05, 07:15 PM
tl;dr

i miss the days when a mid level Paladin could OHK a lesser goddess (lance charge on Tiamat with her mighty 68 1ed hitpoints).

Mike_G
2010-07-05, 07:19 PM
It's not all that hard but it's harder than it needs to be.

You can do science with the Imperial system of measurement. People did for years. But why would you? Decimals beat the snot out of 12 inches =1foot=1/3 yard=1/5280 mi=1/15840 league.

THAC0 is extra steps and is less intuitive. The system in 3.5 is THACO with all the bonuses working in the same direction. Now, +2 Chainmail is the AC of Chainmail plus two. Why is that not better?

Ravens_cry
2010-07-05, 07:30 PM
Because cranky old greybeard's are nostalgic as heck?

fusilier
2010-07-05, 09:10 PM
It's not all that hard but it's harder than it needs to be.

. . .

THAC0 is extra steps and is less intuitive. The system in 3.5 is THACO with all the bonuses working in the same direction. Now, +2 Chainmail is the AC of Chainmail plus two. Why is that not better?

Ah, Why is it better?

The question of good or better will be subjective. It may be less complicated. But there are plenty of other systems that can be imagined that are even simpler, but few would call "better". Some people may prefer a little more complexity. Some people probably just learned it a particular way, and once they grasped it found it easy to use. Others may not think there is much of a difference, or just be ambivalent.

It does about the same thing, with about the same amount of work. You can prefer one to the other, but that doesn't mean one has to be "better" than the other.

Also, old wargames can be all over the map with pluses and minuses. You had to pay attention if the modifier was to the target number or the dice, etc. Many older RPG players were also wargamers, and that level of complexity could easily be expected in certain games. On the other hand a lot of wargames use tables -- which I actually don't mind, as long as each player had a copy of the tables handy. I never played anything before 2nd AD&D, but my understanding is that THAC0 replaced a to-hit table. May have been easier to learn with a table . . .

SimperingToad
2010-07-05, 09:16 PM
tl;dr

i miss the days when a mid level Paladin could OHK a lesser goddess (lance charge on Tiamat with her mighty 68 1ed hitpoints).

Don't know which book you are looking at, but my 1e MM has Tiamat listed at 128hp. That's also a lot of potential breath weapons and spells to get past, even assuming she's not flying. Find a way to charge that, and maybe the paladin deserves the honor. :smallsmile:

Mystic Muse
2010-07-05, 09:17 PM
Don't know which book you are looking at, but my 1e MM has Tiamat listed at 128hp. That's also a lot of potential breath weapons and spells to get past, even assuming she's not flying. Find a way to charge that, and maybe the paladin deserves the honor. :smallsmile:

Plus, the entry I read said she'd have about 5 dragons around her at any time.

Gametime
2010-07-05, 09:17 PM
I have met people who enjoyed AD&D regardless of THAC0, and I suspect that many posters on this forum feel the same way. AD&D is a perfectly functional system and THAC0 is a perfectly functional means of attack adjudication.

I have never met someone who enjoyed AD&D because of THAC0, or who laments the switch from subtraction to addition. I would, indeed, be very surprised to meet someone who felt this way, since it seems to me that THAC0 is one of the least compelling parts of an otherwise wonderful system.

I suspect, though I cannot prove, that much of the attachment to THAC0 is the result of attachment to AD&D as a whole rather than any particular virtue of THAC0 in isolation.

SimperingToad
2010-07-05, 09:28 PM
THAC0 is extra steps and is less intuitive. The system in 3.5 is THACO with all the bonuses working in the same direction. Now, +2 Chainmail is the AC of Chainmail plus two. Why is that not better?

Don't recall anyone saying that it wasn't 'better' (a subjective term), but the discussion was over complexity. THAC0 really is just another modifier. As Matthew mentioned, it's all roll a d20, add modifiers, and compare to a target. As I mentioned before, flip the AC values in the MM and charts (for 1e), and it's problem solved with no effect to the game if you want.

Optimystik
2010-07-05, 09:49 PM
Because dwarves just don't do that, they don't think about it and they don't even want to. Asking "why not?" is human thinking, hence why humans are so flexible in classes. Or maybe they have trouble with the apathy inherent in druidism being strong minded as they are.

Oo oi! (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Pikel_Bouldershoulder) :smallwink:



*snip*


I think I'll side with this guy :smalltongue:

Knaight
2010-07-05, 09:59 PM
Ah, Why is it better?

The question of good or better will be subjective. It may be less complicated. But there are plenty of other systems that can be imagined that are even simpler, but few would call "better". Some people may prefer a little more complexity. Some people probably just learned it a particular way, and once they grasped it found it easy to use. Others may not think there is much of a difference, or just be ambivalent.

Sure, but there is complexity that actually achieves something, and useless complexity. Lets say we have two systems, one is 1d20+modifiers vs. target, the other is 1d20(check table, each number corresponds to another number between 1 and 20 with no pattern)+modifiers vs. target. The second case is more complicated (and really THAC0 is only more complicated, not more complex). Sure, its a tiny, tiny difference, and very basic. The vast majority of the complexity is stuff like reversing the sign on magical weapons, trivial, but annoying.

This is from someone who dislikes D&D in general, and with 3.5 hardly my favorite system among them, I have no reason to cast BAB as any better than it is. 1e had some very nice stuff, and if the mechanics were made more consistent, it would be even better, the only thing that would stop me using it as a simple, introductory system is the existence of better, simple, introductory systems.

Matthew
2010-07-05, 10:54 PM
It's not all that hard but it's harder than it needs to be.

You can do science with the Imperial system of measurement. People did for years. But why would you? Decimals beat the snot out of 12 inches =1foot=1/3 yard=1/5280 mi=1/15840 league.

Right, but imperial measurements are better suited for dividing by three and four into whole numbers, which is what they were designed for.



THAC0 is extra steps and is less intuitive.

THAC0 is one extra step, possibly, often not. The process is:

1a) Player: Roll Die [+ Known Modifiers], call out number
1b) Game Master: + Hidden Modifiers, compare to THAC0

as compared to:

1a) Player: Roll Die + Known Modifiers, call out number
1b) Game Master: [+ Hidden Modifiers], compare to AC

In D20/3e there are almost always "known modifiers", typically an Attack Bonus (unless +0). In AD&D there is almost always an unknown modifier, typically Armour Class (unless 0). In AD&D, however, it is relatively rare for known modifiers to be used, as compared to D20/3e. Most monsters have no attack modifiers. For PCs it is often somewhat different.



The system in 3.5 is THACO with all the bonuses working in the same direction. Now, +2 Chainmail is the AC of Chainmail plus two. Why is that not better?

That is pretty much the chief advantage of ascending armour class, for sure, and that definitely gets into the realm of "badly explained functionality", which is the real fault with THAC0, the confusion not stemming from the mathematics, but rather from phrases like "+10 bonus to armour class".



Because cranky old greybeard's are nostalgic as heck?

Yeah, that will be it, grey bearded cranky nostalgia must lie behind every attempt to understand and explain the whys and wherefores of a system that apparently made sense once upon a time to the people who designed it. I expect wide-eyed beardless naivety must be the opposite end of the spectrum...



I have met people who enjoyed AD&D regardless of THAC0, and I suspect that many posters on this forum feel the same way. AD&D is a perfectly functional system and THAC0 is a perfectly functional means of attack adjudication.

I have never met someone who enjoyed AD&D because of THAC0, or who laments the switch from subtraction to addition. I would, indeed, be very surprised to meet someone who felt this way, since it seems to me that THAC0 is one of the least compelling parts of an otherwise wonderful system.

I suspect, though I cannot prove, that much of the attachment to THAC0 is the result of attachment to AD&D as a whole rather than any particular virtue of THAC0 in isolation.

Heh, you are not looking hard enough. Whilst I do not care personally either way, there are certainly folks who lament the change, quite possibly because of nostalgia or aesthetic preference, or simply because the reason was not good enough compared to the hassle it has caused them in terms of backwards compatibility. I do think it is quite likely that had armour class been ascending tin AD&D (as it was in Chain Mail and Dungeons & Dragons games that used the Chain Mail combat system rather than the more familiar, but what was then known as the Alternative Combat System) there would be no acrimony over it at all.

On the other hand, one very convenient aspect of descending AC I have come to appreciate in developing an AD&D mass battle system is that "Fighting Ability + Armour Class = Number of Average Hits".

Ravens_cry
2010-07-05, 11:16 PM
Yeah, that will be it, grey bearded cranky nostalgia must lie behind every attempt to understand and explain the whys and wherefores of a system that apparently made sense once upon a time to the people who designed it. I expect wide-eyed beardless naivety must be the opposite end of the spectrum...
.
Just like I am sure the solutions to the insane 'logic' of many old adventure games were perfectly sensible to the makers. THAC0 isn't that bad, but saying the designers understand it isn't exactly a recommendation.
My previous comment may have come across as a little harsh, I apologize.

Matthew
2010-07-05, 11:29 PM
Just like I am sure the solutions to the insane 'logic' of many old adventure games were perfectly sensible to the makers. THAC0 isn't that bad, but saying the designers understand it isn't exactly a recommendation.

Sure, but in this case I am not just saying they understand it, but that they flipped armour class from ascending (as it was in Chain Mail) to descending (as it became in OD&D) for a reason. Out of context it might seem to make no sense, but that is often the way with strange seeming things.



My previous comment may have come across as a little harsh, I apologize.
No worries, I won't hold it against you. :smallwink:

Ravens_cry
2010-07-05, 11:32 PM
Sure, but in this case I am not just saying they understand it, but that they flipped armour class from ascending (as it was in Chain Mail) to descending (as it became in OD&D) for a reason. Out of context it might seem to make no sense, but that is often the way with strange seeming things.

Which begs the question of. . .why?

Skorj
2010-07-05, 11:58 PM
What I miss more than anything from AD&D is players not knowing most of the game mechanics. It seems weird now, but it added a lot to the experience when you didn't need to make an effort not to meta-game. Magic was just more interesting when only the DM knew what the saving throws were to begin with, for example. Of course, that made for a lot more work for the DM.

Am I misrembering? I thought THAC0 was a 2e thing, and 1e AD&D was all lookup tables. I know I used my DM screens with those tables for many years. I found THAC0 annoying, but it made perfect sense as a way to transtion away from the charts - all of the oddity was just representing the way the tables before it worked. But then, my gaming group still uses "roll d100 and consult a chart" mechanics for most of our games.

huttj509
2010-07-06, 03:29 AM
The main issue with the combat system that uses THAC0 (not really a problem with THAC0 itself), is when supplements or item descriptions forget to use the key word that says what the number actually does.

A +1 bonus to your Armor class is good.

A +1 penalty to your armor class is bad.

Unfortunately I can't cite any direct sources, but I do remember circumstances came up where something just said it gave a '+1 to armor class'. Wait, is that supposed to be a bonus or penalty?

I think what some people mean when they say the system is complex is that they find it easier to focus on whether the modifier is +1 or -1, as opposed to whether it is described as a bonus or penalty. In addition, well, when TAing college Physics I've encountered people who have issues with subtracting negative numbers. For some reason that sort of thing tends to throw people.

In Plasescape: Torment, which uses the 2e system, there are weapons that state that they give, for example, "+1 THAC0", without stating whether it means that as a bonus or penalty. I don't recall if I encountered such terminology while playing 2e though, it's been quite a while, I don't think any items were supposed to directly affect THAC0.

Basically I think part of it boils down to 'my AC got a positive modifier, that's a bad thing, but a negative modifier would be good, I think.' Silly language getting in the way of mechanical descriptions with words having multiple meanings.

fusilier
2010-07-06, 03:30 AM
Sure, but there is complexity that actually achieves something, and useless complexity. Lets say we have two systems, one is 1d20+modifiers vs. target, the other is 1d20(check table, each number corresponds to another number between 1 and 20 with no pattern)+modifiers vs. target. The second case is more complicated (and really THAC0 is only more complicated, not more complex). Sure, its a tiny, tiny difference, and very basic. The vast majority of the complexity is stuff like reversing the sign on magical weapons, trivial, but annoying.

Perhaps annoying. It seems that once (some) people got used to it they didn't seem to mind. I'll agree that it could be confusing to a novice -- especially when nobody takes the time to explain it to them. It may be more complicated if there was an extra step. However, I don't believe there is an extra step when using THAC0:

3e/4e: Roll a D20 + BAB = AC hit.
AD&D: THAC0 - D20 = AC hit.

Yes, I would agree that it's a bit weird that for some things you want to have high numbers, others low, you have negative ACs, you want to roll low sometimes, and at others time high -- but the steps involved were basically the same. The system was internally consistent, and in my opinion didn't lack annoying holes like later versions (the useless odd numbered stats really bug me for some reason).

I'm not actually sure how the hit tables in 1st ed. AD&D worked, but as somebody who has played games using look-up tables, it's typically not that bad. Tables have the benefit of allowing results that vary according to a more involved mathematical equation, or, as in historical wargames, statistical results. They grant a significant increase in game complexity with little or no more work on the player's part.


This is from someone who dislikes D&D in general, and with 3.5 hardly my favorite system among them, I have no reason to cast BAB as any better than it is. 1e had some very nice stuff, and if the mechanics were made more consistent, it would be even better, the only thing that would stop me using it as a simple, introductory system is the existence of better, simple, introductory systems.

Heh, I think we may be on similar wavelengths when comes to general impressions of D&D. :-) However, I hope you don't consider any version of D&D to be a "better, simple, introductory" rpg system. ;-) (I'll allow that there may be versions of D&D that are more easily grasped by novices).

fusilier
2010-07-06, 03:36 AM
In Plasescape: Torment, which uses the 2e system, there are weapons that state that they give, for example, "+1 THAC0", without stating whether it means that as a bonus or penalty. I don't recall if I encountered such terminology while playing 2e though, it's been quite a while, I don't think any items were supposed to directly affect THAC0.

I've seen similar things happen in some war games. The good ones were always very specific, and would use terms like "die roll modifier" to indicate that the modifier (+ or -) applied to the die roll, and not the target number.

potatocubed
2010-07-06, 06:40 AM
On the other hand, one very convenient aspect of descending AC I have come to appreciate in developing an AD&D mass battle system is that "Fighting Ability + Armour Class = Number of Average Hits".

But wouldn't "Fighting Ability - AC = Average Number of Hits" be just as easy? :smalltongue:

Frankly, I recommend anyone who thinks THAC0 is complex should take a look at Champions/Hero System. Now that is a complex system, yet still popular with countless people who aren't me.

Ashiel
2010-07-06, 08:20 AM
It's not really super complex. It's just more complex and pointless.

So you've got this number that you have to roll to hit AC 0 (which is a really High AC); so you roll against this number. But if an opponent doesn't have an AC 0, and instead has an AC 3, you can roll up to 3 points less than your THAC0 and still hit them; whereas if they have an AC -1, then you have to roll 1 point higher. Ok, that could be seen as simple enough I guess; if you get past the counting backwards and cross-referencing.

Or you can achieve the exact same results with the d20 method.

Attack Bonus + 1d20

vs

AC Bonus + 10.

If you meet or exceed the AC number, you hit. Roll damage.

And yes, it's trivial to teach new people how to use it. Some people become comfortable with THAC0; which is fine because people can get used to some weird things through adaptive learning. The fact people are even trying to suggest that it's in some way a good or even as-good system astounds me though.

Matthew
2010-07-06, 09:06 AM
Which begs the question of. . .why?

The million dollar question! Apparently, it was a Gygax innovation, rather than something that Arneson developed (the most prevalent theory was once that it might be linked to some sort of "roll under" mechanism using 2d6, because the range of armour classes was originally 2-9). By the time the AD&D DMG was released Gygax may have been regretting his earlier decision, as he asserts in the section on magical armour and shields that descending armour class was kept mainly for backwards compatibility, which was certainly the case in 1989 when second edition was being assembled.

It has been contended more recently that the tendency to keep to smaller numbers is easier on the mind (AC 10 to AC −10 as opposed to AC 10+), but regardless of the studies cited I am unconvinced that was what was had in mind. It may have something to do with the AC range being a 21 point progression, meaning that it goes from 0% to 100% in 5% increments (or in the case of OD&D a 19 point progression from 5% to 95%). THAC0 11 would be the "mid point" allowing for the full range of probabilities on 1d20, which equates to monster hit dice 9-10, or fighter level 9-10, so what it may be is the remnants of the designer's investigation into the probability of hits and misses, using a closed range of values.

What we are left with is a decision about the relative advantages and disadvantages of ascending versus descending armour class. In the last ten years the principle case for retaining a descending armour class has been thoroughly eroded, as there is no longer any clear backwards compatibility value in using either, the weight of product has told. For those of us still playing and writing for AD&D (or some approximation thereof) it comes down to a decision about what is most useful. C&C went with an ascending armour class, OSRIC with a descending armour class, and S&W presents both. The decision turns on the question "is THAC0 really too difficult for the audience or is it just poorly explained?" In my opinion, it is the explanation and consistent application that is lacking, because the mathematics of the subject is no barrier.



Am I misremembering? I thought THAC0 was a 2e thing, and 1e AD&D was all lookup tables. I know I used my DM screens with those tables for many years. I found THAC0 annoying, but it made perfect sense as a way to transtion away from the charts - all of the oddity was just representing the way the tables before it worked. But then, my gaming group still uses "roll d100 and consult a chart" mechanics for most of our games.

THAC0 appears in 1979 in the back of the DMG, but the attack matrices are the primary method advocated; around about 1985 THAC0 starts to see common use in the modules.



The main issue with the combat system that uses THAC0 (not really a problem with THAC0 itself), is when supplements or item descriptions forget to use the key word that says what the number actually does.

A +1 bonus to your armour class is good.

A +1 penalty to your armour class is bad.

Unfortunately I can't cite any direct sources, but I do remember circumstances came up where something just said it gave a '+1 to armour class'. Wait, is that supposed to be a bonus or penalty?

I think what some people mean when they say the system is complex is that they find it easier to focus on whether the modifier is +1 or −1, as opposed to whether it is described as a bonus or penalty. In addition, well, when taking college Physics I've encountered people who have issues with subtracting negative numbers. For some reason that sort of thing tends to throw people.

In Planescape: Torment, which uses the 2e system, there are weapons that state that they give, for example, "+1 THAC0", without stating whether it means that as a bonus or penalty. I don't recall if I encountered such terminology while playing 2e though, it's been quite a while, I don't think any items were supposed to directly affect THAC0.

Basically I think part of it boils down to 'my AC got a positive modifier, that's a bad thing, but a negative modifier would be good, I think.' Silly language getting in the way of mechanical descriptions with words having multiple meanings.

Pretty much. The idea that you want your defence modifier to be as low as possible and your attack modifier to be as high as possible can be confusing if it is not understood that they are modifiers to the die roll (where it makes perfect sense). On the other hand, you want both your THAC0 and AC to be as low as possible, which seems consistent, but then discover that they work on different scales (0-20 and −10 to 10). The basic consistency whereby a minus is always a minus and a plus always a plus (i.e. −1 to an attack roll is the same as −1 to armour class, or defence) is obfuscated and overwhelmed by the idea of a "high attack (modifier to hit enemy) and high defence (enemy target number to hit you)" or "low attack (target number to hit enemy) and low defence (modifier for enemy to hit you)".



But wouldn't "Fighting Ability − AC = Average Number of Hits" be just as easy? :smalltongue:

If I am understanding you, that would not give you the right answer. For it to work in D20/3e's ascending armour class system you would need it to be:

20 − AC + FA = Average Number of Hits

For it to work with THAC0 (rather than fighting ability) it would have to be:

21 − THAC0 + AC = Average Number of Hits



Frankly, I recommend anyone who thinks THAC0 is complex should take a look at Champions/Hero System. Now that is a complex system, yet still popular with countless people who aren't me.

Too true.



And yes, it's trivial to teach new people how to use it. Some people become comfortable with THAC0; which is fine because people can get used to some weird things through adaptive learning. The fact people are even trying to suggest that it's in some way a good or even as-good system astounds me though.

What you appear to be looking at there is determining the "hit number" [i.e. what do I have to roll to hit?], which is why it appears confusing. If you wanted to know that same information in D20/3e you would need to deduct your bonus to hit from the armour class of the opponent. In 99% of cases the player does not know the AC and does not need to know their THAC0 in AD&D, because what the player does is the same regardless of whether it is D20/3e or AD&D, which is to say rolls the dice and adds his modifiers to get a total, which he then calls out. In D20/3e the player or game master typically has an attack modifier to add, which is then compared to a target number to determine a hit. In AD&D the typical modifier is armour class, which the game master adds to the roll or deducts from the target number to determine if a hit was scored (depending on what he is comfortable with). For example:

D20/3e: Orc attacks Fighter: GM rolls 1d20 + 3 (AB) and compares it to the player's AC 15.

AD&D: Orc attacks Fighter: GM rolls 1d20 + 5 (AC) and compares it to the orc's THAC0 19.

kjones
2010-07-06, 09:15 AM
You know what I miss about 2nd edition? All the random, ridiculous bull****, like the example for encumbrance where the guy has a rug that only weighs 20 pounds but it's so bulky that it effectively weighs 30 pounds. And now in 4th edition, you're not even supposed to track encumbrance!

Yes sir, 2nd edition was a Real Man's game, make no bones about it.

Matthew
2010-07-06, 10:09 AM
*sniff* :smallfrown:

But.. but.. I want to continue bashing casters mechanics changes!

*removes a tear with his fingertip*

We still can! Dry those tears! :smallbiggrin:



What I did appreciate about AD&D, and didn't realize it until the later versions came out, was that the system was thought out and pretty consistent. I felt that some of the design decisions made in subsequent versions were done simply to have a familiar look, but lack function.

Indeed; playing D20/3e gave me a fresh appreciation for AD&D, which turns out to have had relatively consistent maths even behind its saving throw system (which always seemed to me the most bizarre element).



You know what I miss about 2nd edition? All the random, ridiculous bull****, like the example for encumbrance where the guy has a rug that only weighs 20 pounds but it's so bulky that it effectively weighs 30 pounds. And now in 4th edition, you're not even supposed to track encumbrance!

Yes sir, 2nd edition was a Real Man's game, make no bones about it.

Heh, heh; my favourite description comes right out of the first edition DMG:



As an example, Dimwall the magician and Drudge the fighter have prepared for a dungeon expedition. Dimwall, besides his normal clothing, has strapped on a belt with a large pouch on it. Into this and his robe, he tucks his material components (minimal encumbrance). He also places in his pouch a potion bottle, a mirror, some garlic and belladonna, and his tinderbox. At his right side hangs a dagger and sheath and four more daggers are on a bandoleer slung across his chest. Over all these belts, he puts his backpack. In his pack goes a hand axe (for chopping, not fighting), 3 flasks of oil, a candle, 3 small sacks, 1 large sack, and 7 torches. lashed in a bundle to the pack is 50' of rope. At his left side, hanging from his belt, are a leather scroll case and his purse, filled with 20 gold pieces. He holds a staff in his right hand and a torch in his left. He is now ready to travel, with a total encumbrance of 689 gold pieces.

Meanwhile, his companion, Drudge, has strapped on his splint armour. He wears 2 belts around his waist; his longsword hangs from one. On the other belt he places his quiver with 40 bolts, a cocking hook, and a dagger. He slips on his backpack, already loaded with 10 spikes, one week's iron rations, and a flask of oil. To the bottom of the pack he has strapped 50' of rope. Hanging on the rear of the pack is his heavy crossbow. Around his neck he wears a holy symbol. Finally, he straps his large shield on his left arm, fits his helmet, and takes his lantern, ready to go with a total encumbrance of 1117 gold pieces.

During their adventures, Dimwall and Drudge find 800 gold pieces in a troll's treasure horde. Dimwall can carry 400 gold pieces in his large sack and another 300 gold pieces in his small sacks. Dimwall leaves his torches and staff, since he must have his hands free. Then he fastens a small sack to his belt and, using two hands, carries the large sack over his shoulder. Drudge eats part of his iron rations and throws the rest away, along with his spikes and oil. He places the remaining bags in the bottom of his pack and then pours the loose coins on top of them. Encumbrance for Dimwall is now 889 gold pieces and 1222 gold pieces for Drudge.

As they leave, Dimwall and Drudge meet the troll. There is little time to react, so Drudge must quickly drop his lantern (possibly putting it out) and attack. As he does this, Dimwall must drop the large sack (probably scattering coins about), unsling his pack, and start digging for his oil. By the time he finds it, the troll may have killed them both!

Seems very role immersive. Of course, not even the tournament characters for A1-4, G1-3 or D1-3 have encumbrance calculated for them! :smallbiggrin:

John Campbell
2010-07-06, 11:43 AM
My take on the whole THAC0 thing is this:

Lower AC being better is a little unintuitive. But it's not hard; the simple statement, "Lower AC is better," is all anyone should ever need to figure that out.

"THAC0 - (1d20 + situational modifiers) == AC hit" is slightly harder than "BAB + (1d20 + situational modifiers) == AC hit", but we're talking second grade arithmetic rather than first grade here. As I said before, my friends and I were playing AD&D without any difficulty when we were eight. Claiming that it's too hard is... not a line of debate that I would want to pursue too far.

My issue is that many people - including WotC themselves - vastly overstate the difficulty and infelicities of THAC0, and harp on that to "prove" that AD&D was too difficult, overcomplicated, and universally bad, and 3.x is much simpler and better... when, in fact, WotC simplified and streamlined a few mechanics in 3E (frequently breaking the game badly in the process), but then added many, many more mechanics, including entire complex subsystems that simply didn't exist in AD&D, and piles and piles of rules for specific situations where AD&D just provided some general-purpose mechanics and trusted the DM to work out what was appropriate to use, with the end result that 3.5, even just the core, is a vastly more complicated game than AD&D ever was. When you throw in dozens of base classes, scores of prestige classes (which didn't exist in AD&D), hundreds if not thousands of feats (also didn't exist), and all the other crap they've shoveled on to sell splatbooks...

(I wrote a PHP-generated character sheet for 3.5, because I got tired of having to manually recalculate and change eleventy-three different numbers every time I leveled up or got a magic item that modified one of my stats or whatnot. I later on adapted it for an AD&D campaign. Not only was it less necessary there, because AD&D has many fewer numbers and it's much less common for them to change... the AD&D version of that character sheet - including all of the zomgtables from the PHB that everyone loves complaining about - weighs in at about a tenth the size of the 3.5 one, and implements a much larger percentage of its system. Code size is complexity. AD&D was really that much simpler.)

Yora
2010-07-06, 11:59 AM
THAC0 is the same as BAB, with only the calculations put in an order that is more intuitive. Yes, that point is mostly cosmetical. But then you get stuff like saves, or the same score in each ability meaning something completely different.
Then there is d100% rolls for thieves skills and weapon speed, and that's when the d20 system really becomes a huge improvement.
Also multiclassing in 3rd Edition is so much more fun.
THAC0 was not the problem. But creating an Edition of D&D using the d20 rules was a very good move in my oppinion.

Just like I am sure the solutions to the insane 'logic' of many old adventure games were perfectly sensible to the makers. THAC0 isn't that bad, but saying the designers understand it isn't exactly a recommendation.
I think if back in the 70's someone would have told the guy "But Gary, why don't make attack a bonus instead of a score, and then just add it to the roll to hit AC?", I think he would have facepalmed himself, telling the guy how grateful he is for pointing that out, and be completely embarrased for the next three days.

Matthew
2010-07-06, 12:15 PM
THAC0 is the same as BAB, with only the calculations put in an order that is more intuitive. Yes, that point is mostly cosmetic. But then you get stuff like saves, or the same score in each ability meaning something completely different.

Interestingly, saving throws are exactly like THAC0, but I agree that the attribute tables are not as good as the B/X versions, though they have their quirky charm.



Then there is d100% rolls for thieves skills and weapon speed, and that's when the d20 system really becomes a huge improvement. Also multiclassing in 3rd Edition is so much more fun. THAC0 was not the problem. But creating an Edition of D&D using the d20 rules was a very good move in my opinion.

I think if you view a unified system where everything works more or less the same off a D20 as a good thing, then this is certainly true. If, on the other hand, you basically see everything in terms of probability and desire varying degrees of granularity for different things there is less to recommend it. There is no doubt, however, that D20/3e was a wildly successful incarnation of D&D and so it was definitely a good business move, and for a large number of fans.



I think if back in the 70's someone would have told the guy "But Gary, why don't make attack a bonus instead of a score, and then just add it to the roll to hit AC?", I think he would have facepalmed himself, telling the guy how grateful he is for pointing that out, and be completely embarrassed for the next three days.

Possibly in 1974, but certainly not by 1979, as the DMG seems fully aware of the alternatives. I would be surprised if he was not aware earlier, though, as his previous efforts show a reasonably good grasp of maths. One very likely reason is simply that a matrix or chart was viewed as either something aesthetically necessary for a war game (which D&D was marketed as, and war gamers comprised its target audience in 1974) or easier than doing the actual sums. This is what the original combat table looked like:

{table=head]Class |
Weapon | AC 1 | AC 2 | AC 3 | AC 4 | AC 5 | AC 6 | AC 7 | AC 8

1 |
Dagger |
6 |
8 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
12* |
12* |

1 |
Hand Axe |
7 |
8 |
7 |
9 |
10 |
10 |
11 |
12 |

2 |
Mace |
8 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
8 |

3 |
Sword |
7 |
8 |
8 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
10* |
11* |

4 |
Battle Axe |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
9 |
10 |

5 |
Morning Star |
6 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
8 |

6 |
Flail |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
6 |
7 |

7 |
Spear |
8 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
10 |
11* |
12* |

8 |
Pole Arms |
6 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
8 |
9* |
10* |

9 |
Halberd |
8 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
8 |

10 |
Two Handed Sword |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
7 |

10 |
Mounted Lance |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |

12 |
Pike |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
9 |
10
[/table]

For those who are not familiar with this table, a little bit of explanation may be necessary. The number to the left of each weapon name is its class, which determines by means of comparison between the weapons of two opponents whether a parry is possible, as well as influencing when, and how many, attacks take place in one round. The idea of "weapon class" is analogous to "armour class" and anticipates the more familiar Advanced Dungeons & Dragons concepts of weapon speed and length.

There is no variable damage in the man to man combat rules, casualties are determined by comparing armour worn to weapon used and rolling 2d6; a score equal or higher than the number in the table indicates a kill. However, some monsters and heroes can take multiple "hits" [i.e. kill results] before being slain and the dice roll may be modified by various factors. The percentage chance equivalents are: 12 = 2.77%, 11 = 8.33%, 10 = 16.67%, 9 = 27.77%, 8 = 41.67%, 7 = 58.33%, 6 = 72.22%, 5 = 83.33%. What this means in practice is that the mounted lance, for instance, has an equal chance of killing a character with armour class 1, 2, 3, or 4 [i.e. no armour and no shield; no armour with shield; leather or padded armour and no shield; and leather or padded armour with a shield].

ZeltArruin
2010-07-06, 02:24 PM
Things I miss that other people seem to hate:
-Race/Class restrictions
-Stat restriction on classes
-casting times, how can you cast time stop in the same time it would take to cast magic missle?
-Different Exp amounts required to level
-Differnt Saving throw tables
-no cr, ecl, or any such thing
-% based magic resistance
-fighters
-Backstab as a multiplier (okay, I critically-backstab for....214 damage)
-% based thief skills
-never having to open a rule book unless you were casting a spell

Just to name a few

Mystic Muse
2010-07-06, 02:36 PM
Things I miss that other people seem to hate:
-fighters
I don't hate these. They just aren't that good.


-never having to open a rule book unless you were casting a spell


I don't have to do this.:smallbiggrin:

Yora
2010-07-06, 02:41 PM
I don't have to do this.:smallbiggrin:
You're not oldschool. :smalltongue:

Mystic Muse
2010-07-06, 02:43 PM
You're not oldschool. :smalltongue:

You're correct. Unless 17 is considered oldschool now.

I have everything Relevant to my character written down in a notebook. Makes things much easier.

ZeltArruin
2010-07-06, 03:12 PM
I guess I should have been more specific, but I generally never have to check the rules for something my character does, but the other people I play with are guaranteed to do something so radically stupid that requires cracking open an ice cold rule book to then, after using, smack them upside the head with.

I am always attempting to keep everything simple when I dm, but some people are opposed to me making them roll a d20+stat mod.

Set
2010-07-06, 03:22 PM
I miss fireballs that expanded to fill 33,000 cubic feet and lightning bolts that rebounded and dragons that could be subdued and ridden like ponies.

The biggest thing in the Monster Manual had 88 hit points, and lightning bolts did up to 20d6. These days, the same great wyrm red dragon has 770 hit points, *and* Spell Resistance, and the same lightning bolt is capped at 10d6. No wonder people scoff at evocation...

Lapak
2010-07-06, 03:35 PM
The biggest thing in the Monster Manual had 88 hit points, and lightning bolts did up to 20d6. These days, the same great wyrm red dragon has 770 hit points, *and* Spell Resistance, and the same lightning bolt is capped at 10d6. No wonder people scoff at evocation...You're absolutely right about this being one of the keys to the decline of Evocation, with the other major one being the changes to how saving throws functioned. (Though the biggest HP total in the 1e MM was, IIRC, Asmodeus - he had 199 HP, and 2nd edition went up from there.)

Zen Monkey
2010-07-06, 03:41 PM
I miss..

Magic being more... magical, and not just numbers. Yes, you can add fluff to 3e spells, but they're so bland in the rulebook. +1 to hit, +1 to damage, +1d4 to an ability score. I miss the odd spells, like Sticks to Snakes for example. You toss a staff on the ground and it turns into a snake for X rounds. Magic should also frighten the peasant folk. 3e books treat magic and treasure as very common, so that farmer down the street isn't impressed by your fireball because he's made it to level 2 commoner which afforded him his +2 rake of protection and a closet full of potions. You can argue that it's GM world construction, but the wealth-by-level tables are just one big attempt to take control away from the GM. I'm not a fan of 3e items either, as they're equally bland. I liked the design of earlier magic weapons than the video game-y approach of (prefix)(weapon)of(suffix)ing that makes the function of them very obvious.

Different xp charts for different classes. I didn't think I'd miss it, but it would fix a lot of 3e's tier system. If you want to make fighters on par with wizards, but the wizard is just too powerful, then make fighters level faster. 3e wizard vs. fighter is an easy choice, but not so easy if the fighter is going to have twice as many levels.

I don't miss gymnastics in plate mail. A fighter with full plate and a huge dexterity was a rough matchup. I like that 3e initially attempted an either/or solution where you were a tank or fast, but not both. Then it all went away with crazy armor enchantments and floating shields and such. I like hard choices, and the 'best of both worlds' (armor and dex, 2h weapon and floating shield, etc) take the fun and strategy out of it.

Gametime
2010-07-06, 04:27 PM
I miss..

Magic being more... magical, and not just numbers. Yes, you can add fluff to 3e spells, but they're so bland in the rulebook. +1 to hit, +1 to damage, +1d4 to an ability score. I miss the odd spells, like Sticks to Snakes for example. You toss a staff on the ground and it turns into a snake for X rounds. Magic should also frighten the peasant folk. 3e books treat magic and treasure as very common, so that farmer down the street isn't impressed by your fireball because he's made it to level 2 commoner which afforded him his +2 rake of protection and a closet full of potions. You can argue that it's GM world construction, but the wealth-by-level tables are just one big attempt to take control away from the GM. I'm not a fan of 3e items either, as they're equally bland. I liked the design of earlier magic weapons than the video game-y approach of (prefix)(weapon)of(suffix)ing that makes the function of them very obvious.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't AD&D have +1 swords and the like, too? I'm not a huge fan of magic as pure numbers, either, and 3e definitely increased the default availability of magic items, but it didn't invent the idea of magic items as bonuses.


Different xp charts for different classes. I didn't think I'd miss it, but it would fix a lot of 3e's tier system. If you want to make fighters on par with wizards, but the wizard is just too powerful, then make fighters level faster. 3e wizard vs. fighter is an easy choice, but not so easy if the fighter is going to have twice as many levels.


Doubtful, unless you maintain WBL at the same time. High level fighters gain very few defenses against spells, while wizards get save-or-loses pretty early. The fact that initiative doesn't scale well means that the fighter doesn't even increase his chances of going first. He can almost definitely kill the wizard if he hits, but there are second level spells that can make that very difficult even for a 20th level fighter.

A high level fighter can kill a wizard of lower than 17th level mostly because magic items shore up a lot of weaknesses. I'm not sure how you'd translate the different WBL expectations into a game where people level at different speeds, and you've already mentioned that you don't like the charts to begin with, so... yeah. I'm siding with the wizard on this one, if both classes get equal item distribution.

AD&D does have other ways of weakening spellcasters, though. Everyone and their grandma getting a shot at you while you're casting a spell is my personal favorite and probably the most effective.

Optimystik
2010-07-06, 04:37 PM
Magic should also frighten the peasant folk. 3e books treat magic and treasure as very common, so that farmer down the street isn't impressed by your fireball because he's made it to level 2 commoner which afforded him his +2 rake of protection and a closet full of potions.

This complaint has nothing to do with systems and everything to do with setting.

John Campbell
2010-07-06, 04:46 PM
I don't miss gymnastics in plate mail. A fighter with full plate and a huge dexterity was a rough matchup. I like that 3e initially attempted an either/or solution where you were a tank or fast, but not both. Then it all went away with crazy armor enchantments and floating shields and such. I like hard choices, and the 'best of both worlds' (armor and dex, 2h weapon and floating shield, etc) take the fun and strategy out of it.
Out here in the real world, I've actually done gymnastics in plate armor. There are many others in the SCA and similar groups that can say the same. There've even been a few occasions where I've gotten my armor out to show a non-SCAdian DM that, yes, it is possible to do whatever it is I'm trying to have my character do while wearing plate.

Dex caps can bite me. They're just another way to screw the Fighter, by making his Heavy Armor Proficiency worthless.

(And Dex caps are a really bizarre, nonsensical mechanic anyway, even disregarding the fact that they're unrealistic. If wearing armor is going to penalize AC (which is bad insanity to begin with) by slowing the wearer down, it should slow everybody down, not just limit the people who are faster than a certain speed to that speed.)

I miss better armor being better.

LibraryOgre
2010-07-06, 04:54 PM
I often get nostalgic about AD&D, and I realize those days will never return. :smallfrown:
I miss bards really sucking.

Which AD&D were you playing? Bards were pretty awesome all around.



I miss using erasers and clothespins as monsters due to lack of miniatures.
I miss THAC0 and race-class restrictions.
I miss the crappy black and white artwork in the old books.
I miss stupid, hilarious, awesome monsters like the Flumph and the Gazebo.
I miss getting bad rolls for attributes and hit points.
I miss rogues being called "thieves" and wizards being called dorky things like "magic-users".
I miss "Keep on the Borderlands" and "Undermountain".
I miss boxed sets and and lame AD&D computer games.
And most of all I miss my first D&D game which was a total TPK.

Come over to Castles and Crusades.

Knaight
2010-07-06, 05:03 PM
Heh, I think we may be on similar wavelengths when comes to general impressions of D&D. :-) However, I hope you don't consider any version of D&D to be a "better, simple, introductory" rpg system. ;-) (I'll allow that there may be versions of D&D that are more easily grasped by novices).
I'm thinking Risus here more than anything else. Heck, you could use class titles as the cliches, and capture the feel of Basic D&D incredibly easily.

The New Bruceski
2010-07-06, 05:10 PM
If we're talking the step from AD&D to 3E/3.5, I missed the singling out of optional rules. 4E, particularly DMGs, regained the emphasis that rules can be tweaked as the DM sees fit, and make notes of possible reasons/consequences.

3E rules could be tweaked just as easily, but the rulebooks didn't make much note of it.

SimperingToad
2010-07-06, 08:42 PM
You're absolutely right about this being one of the keys to the decline of Evocation, with the other major one being the changes to how saving throws functioned. (Though the biggest HP total in the 1e MM was, IIRC, Asmodeus - he had 199 HP, and 2nd edition went up from there.)

Biggest HP total that I could find in the 1E MM is the brachiosaurus and the simple whale, topping out at a whopping 288hp for a 36HD creature (and presuming a full 8 hp/die). By comparison, Titans can get to 178. Demogorgon has 200, Asmodeus has 199, Bahamut has 168.

Dragons were never meant to be the biggest and baddest because of Gary's reading of mythology and legends, where heroes like Sigurd and St. George defeated dragons single-handedly. The rules were made to emulate that. That's not saying that a DM can't change that, however. :smallwink:

Randalor
2010-07-06, 09:34 PM
I miss wizards/clerics/druids not being the penultimate, supreme-rulers-of-everything-you're-useless-if-you-chose-something-else classes at level 5. Do they end up the most powerful? Oh yeah, eventually, but I also remember fighters being useful even at high levels.

Then again, wizards also had things like casting times, and virtually no way to quicken/extend/maximize/fork/twin/ect every spell for free. Stupid 3ed splatbooks.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-06, 09:51 PM
Thumbing through my second edition PHB, you had metamagic spells that changed how other spell worked.

Kaun
2010-07-06, 10:01 PM
I miss Wild magic

Randalor
2010-07-06, 10:02 PM
Oh, there were metamagic spells to increase other spells, but they were things like "Extend 1: Increase the duration of any 1st- to 3rd-level spell cast in the previous round by 50%", but it costs a 4th level spell slot to do so. I was refering more to things like Incantrix allowing for stupid amounts of metamagics on a spell for the low low cost of... the spell in the exact same spellslot it started out in, or DMM abuse, or...

ZeltArruin
2010-07-06, 10:11 PM
Out here in the real world, I've actually done gymnastics in plate armor. There are many others in the SCA and similar groups that can say the same. There've even been a few occasions where I've gotten my armor out to show a non-SCAdian DM that, yes, it is possible to do whatever it is I'm trying to have my character do while wearing plate.

Dex caps can bite me. They're just another way to screw the Fighter, by making his Heavy Armor Proficiency worthless.

(And Dex caps are a really bizarre, nonsensical mechanic anyway, even disregarding the fact that they're unrealistic. If wearing armor is going to penalize AC (which is bad insanity to begin with) by slowing the wearer down, it should slow everybody down, not just limit the people who are faster than a certain speed to that speed.)

I miss better armor being better.

I agree in every way fathomable.

Optimystik
2010-07-06, 10:26 PM
I miss Wild magic

How was it different from 3e Wild magic?

JonestheSpy
2010-07-06, 10:32 PM
I miss being new to roleplay, and seeing an entire fantasy world of possibilities unrolling before my eyes, not knowing how to play, or being constrained by arbitrary rules. I miss not having to make builds (though I do enjoy making builds) and just trying to take on creepy-crawlies with my wits and whatever I happen to have on-hand.

In short, I miss being young, ignorant, and full of possibilities.

That about covers it.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-06, 11:15 PM
That about covers it.
You don't need AD&D for that, just be new to roleplay.

JonestheSpy
2010-07-07, 12:41 AM
You don't need AD&D for that, just be new to roleplay.

Yeah, but it was AD&D for a lot of us...

And btw, some folks have commented about 'bad art' in AD&D. I would say that the original edition's art, while sometimes amateurish, was far better at conveying the sense of wonder and mystery that is the hallmark of real fantasy. From the amazing classical draftsmanship of David Trampier to the twisted Lovecraftian visions of Erol Otus, I find them far more evocative than the polished pin-ups of 3rd edition.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KVMmj3VWme4/SD1OxUL3cPI/AAAAAAAAAJU/xxGsx1QcFVo/s400/trampier1.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KVMmj3VWme4/SD1O50L3cRI/AAAAAAAAAJk/YUwFbO6yK10/s400/trampier3.gif

http://minipainting-guild.net/eo/coverofdrag55.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/SfCIrJZniYI/AAAAAAAAA8g/eeoILGH0ABM/s400/otusmyconid.jpg

Ravens_cry
2010-07-07, 01:05 AM
There is some 1st editon art I like, the engraving style seen in the Intellect Devourer is very nice, and excellent example of monochromatic art..
But then you get the grade school squiggles, like the Owlbear, which I genuinely enjoy the concept of.
http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/2187/ddbeastsowlbear2.jpg
Or the elf, if you have your AD&D handy, or gods have mercy, the dinosaurs.
Some of it is good, really good given the production limitations, but a lot of it was pretty awful.

JonestheSpy
2010-07-07, 01:22 AM
There is some 1st editon art I like, the engraving style seen in the Intellect Devourer is very nice, and excellent example of monochromatic art..

But then you get the grade school squiggles, like the Owlbear, which I genuinely enjoy the concept of.

Some of it is good, really good given the production limitations, but a lot of it was pretty awful.

Well, as I've said before, the art of the first triad of AD&D rulebooks is a Tale of Two Daves. The great stuff - Intellect Devourer - was by David Trampier; the really amateurish stuff - Owlbear, dinosuars - was by poor ol' David C. Sutherland, you can see his initials in the illustration above.

I still have some affection for ol' DCS though - there was an innocent enthusiasm in his work that could shine through, and he did come up with some truly iconic images:

http://www.fightingtigersofveda.com/dndpih.jpg


Speaking of which, I just came across this old illustration from The Dragon #42, which I still may actually have in a box somewhere, that captures a lot of what I liked so much about the older art (The artist in tis case being Todd Lockwood)


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_iBDQOXCHTEU/S8OqgwQdZdI/AAAAAAAAAnk/gtmUGt84o94/s1600/fat+and+manky+orcus.JPG

Ravens_cry
2010-07-07, 01:32 AM
There did seem to be a lot more actual nipplege in the older art, that's for sure.

Theo Hammond
2010-07-07, 03:47 AM
Its sure been a while now but memory highlights for me (not sure if they're good or bad!) were;

Darts. 3 attacks a round that basically gave the low level wizard something to do after he had cast his spell for the day. Plus having to explain to each new player in the group that, no, he hadn't found a really clever exploit as you didn't get your Str damage on a dart.

Druids. Namely they're crazy level progression that meant after achieving a certain amount of success they had to seek out and beat the stuffing out of other similar level druids, or else they would never learn by experience ever again. In theory, of course, i never knew anyone who actually played this rule.

XP for GP. Nuff said!

Classic Dungeons. Tomb of Horrors. Temple of Elemental Evil. Etc

Players Options handbooks. Not saying they were good (as far as my memory goes they 'could' have been, but largely they seemed to help bad players get worse) but i certainly remember them.

Spellfire. Shudder.

Spelljammer. Brilliant.

Night Below. My first ever campaign. Meet the Underdark, stab literally everything that lives in it. Attack a whole city. Then things got tough...

Level Drain. Pretty much worse than death.

Gametime
2010-07-07, 09:27 AM
There is some 1st editon art I like, the engraving style seen in the Intellect Devourer is very nice, and excellent example of monochromatic art..
But then you get the grade school squiggles, like the Owlbear, which I genuinely enjoy the concept of.


...Does anyone else think that looks more like a turtlebear?

Also, why isn't turtlebear a D&D monster yet?

Randalor
2010-07-07, 09:39 AM
Druids. Namely they're crazy level progression that meant after achieving a certain amount of success they had to seek out and beat the stuffing out of other similar level druids, or else they would never learn by experience ever again. In theory, of course, i never knew anyone who actually played this rule.

Really, that always seemed like something that would make good plot material for later on in the game, or as a filler quest between long-term plots.


Players Options handbooks. Not saying they were good (as far as my memory goes they 'could' have been, but largely they seemed to help bad players get worse) but i certainly remember them.

If you're refering to the "Complete" line of books, I'll semi-agree. I have two. The Complete Bard's Handbook and the Complete Book of Dwarves. The Bard one is... okay, some decent kits for players, talks a bit on history of music, but not that much game-wise. Book of Dwarves? I'll never need to worry about my group's nitpicky questions ever again relating to mines, vein depth, quality of ore, volume of ore...


Night Below. My first ever campaign. Meet the Underdark, stab literally everything that lives in it. Attack a whole city. Then things got tough...

I have that campaign. About how hard would it be for newer players/newer GM to play through *New to AD&D anyways*?

Theo Hammond
2010-07-07, 11:04 AM
I forgot about the 'Complete' range. Books of Dwarves was probably the worst if i remember right, featuring such truly worth skills as 'Cheesemaking' and 'Whittling' (and there may have been 'Humming' as well...). Book of Humanoids just allowed far too much sillyness though.

But the Players Option books (if that is even the right name for them) i recall came out towards the end of AD&D, black-spined hardbacks that were there to give more options and variations for characters and gameplay. I 'think' they were called Skills & Powers, Combat & Tactics and there may have been a spell-related one as well, i'm hazy on them now. They had some interesting ideas but largely meant that players could now load themselves up with pointless and non-effecting flaws (bad World of Darkness style) and offset that with various funky abilities. There was some nonsense about splitting each stat in two as well. Very much a mixed bag but it did at least add just that little more interest and longevity to a game that was seriously long in the tooth.

Night below is almost catered perfectly for the newer player. The first book is the best, levels 1 thru 5 or so, all above ground and really well put together as an intro to standard fantasy gaming. Not too linear, not too loose.

Book 2 is the dungeon crawl ending in a whopping great city full of baddies. Some nasty traps here but put together in such a way that your players should get more savvy the more they play.

However there is probably too much dungeon crawl here. Its all there is really. Troll caves. Troglodyte caves. Quaggoth caves. Roper caves. Ooze caves. Etc Etc. If your newbies find that they don't much like dungeon-crawl campaigns then you're pretty much stuck. My group, a well-seasoned and open-minded bunch ended up getting sick of it and after grinding away at most of the end-of-book city just decided enough was enough upon finding that, after that...yep, more caves!

potatocubed
2010-07-07, 11:42 AM
I've never got a game of Night Below past the end of book 2 either, which is a shame because I still reckon it's pretty good. You do have to like caves, though.

There was a Player's Option: Spells and Magic, which was my favourite for no better reason than it had a shagload of new spells in the back. I don't think I ever used anything else from it.

hamlet
2010-07-07, 02:01 PM
Players' Options books are execrable.

AD&D had an identity crisis and produced the mutated offspring as if it had mated with GURPS.

Satyr
2010-07-07, 02:29 PM
AD&D had an identity crisis and produced the mutated offspring as if it had mated with GURPS.

Which is why the Player's Options books are among the best ones ever published for D&D...

No seriously, in many ways Skills and Powers is a much more modern and mature game than 3rd edition D&D.

I don't miss AD&D per se, but A Skills and Powers campaign, I would consider.

Matthew
2010-07-07, 02:49 PM
The various Player's Option and Dungeon Master's Option books were just a logical extension of the direction the game was heading in, as far as I can tell; Combat & Tactics basically presents the D20/3e combat system with a handful of differences and some additional extraneous material for running duels, sieges, and managing critical hits of various sorts. As a whole, they are just exactly what they claim to be, a collection of optional rules to supplement the game with additional complexity. Some will appreciate that, and others will view it as damaging one of the chief virtues of the system, which is its relative simplicity, especially with regard its speed of character creation and combat resolution. Attempting to be "all things to all people" has long been the cardinal problem for Dungeons & Dragons.

LibraryOgre
2010-07-07, 02:55 PM
Players option were good and bad. I think most of the class options were fairly poorly balanced, and it's a case of not giving enough attention to the fighter-types. Races likewise got some very weird things going on, especially elves (since you could make a surface elf with no ability to see in the dark, but drow spell powers and the ability to breathe underwater).

But some of the rules stuff? Great. The compilation of costs and availability of material components? Great. The martial arts rules from C&T worked well, as did the advanced specializations. I kinda felt the criticals were a bit too much, but the general "Roll an X or higher and beat the AC by 5 or more" made for a simple system for determining criticals... and just because I felt they were too much doesn't mean other groups did, as well.

But it was a very hit or miss set-up.

Lord Vampyre
2010-07-07, 06:16 PM
Oo oi! (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Pikel_Bouldershoulder) :smallwink:

Pikel was a fluke. His own brother didn't even approve until the end of the Cleric Quintet.

Optimystik
2010-07-07, 06:20 PM
Pikel was a fluke. His own brother didn't even approve until the end of the Cleric Quintet.

1) The archdruid visiting the library approved by the end of the first book.

2) He learned some magic (though not a great deal - he was multiclass after all) so obviously, Silvanus approved as well.

3) I think of him more as "the tip of the iceberg" than a fluke.

DonEsteban
2010-07-07, 06:34 PM
How was it different from 3e Wild magic?

Well it was... wilder. It was not just about varying your caster level. The core of it was a spell named Nahal's Reckless Dweomer. Which allowed you to try to cast any spell in your spell book. But with a certain chance this would cause a wild surge. And from there on anything could happen.

I remember our wild mage casting Nahal's Reckless Dweomer while we were battling a dragon. Which caused a firewall to appear at a random location. Which wouldn't have been so bad, had it not appeared directly in front of the flying carpet half the group was flying. Which wouldn't have been so bad had not our paladin failed his save (rolled a 1). Which wouldn't have been so bad had not his magical helmet also failed the save. From there on it was basically a chain reaction of explosions. And most of the group falling from the skies barely alive. That dragon had a good laugh this day!

Yes, you had to love wild magic.

Lord Vampyre
2010-07-07, 06:45 PM
I miss not having AoOs. Before the advent of the attack of opportunity, I could run a game without ever setting up a battle mat. Now, if I don't set up the battle mat my players scream that they should they need to know when they can take an AoO, Combat Reflexes and all.

I have to admit that I also miss the class restrictions. They gave each race their own flavor. Now most races are pretty much the same to me.

The one thing I am thankful for 3e doing. 3e actually gave people a reason to play humans. Demihumans in 2e were just more interesting than the poor little humans.

BobVosh
2010-07-07, 07:09 PM
I miss harvesting various bits of monsters because it actually did stuff. Like mucus of aboleths to make some breath water potion etc.

I miss the sillyness of weapon damage where you deal more damage against a larger target.

I miss double specialization being great, even if double specialized dagger throwing fighters broke the game pretty easily.

Lapak
2010-07-07, 08:03 PM
Well it was... wilder. It was not just about varying your caster level. The core of it was a spell named Nahal's Reckless Dweomer. Which allowed you to try to cast any spell in your spell book. But with a certain chance this would cause a wild surge. And from there on anything could happen.

I remember our wild mage casting Nahal's Reckless Dweomer while we were battling a dragon. Which caused a firewall to appear at a random location. Which wouldn't have been so bad, had it not appeared directly in front of the flying carpet half the group was flying. Which wouldn't have been so bad had not our paladin failed his save (rolled a 1). Which wouldn't have been so bad had not his magical helmet also failed the save. From there on it was basically a chain reaction of explosions. And most of the group falling from the skies barely alive. That dragon had a good laugh this day!

Yes, you had to love wild magic.I take it he was wearing a Helm of Brilliance? Because ouch. :smalleek:

(And yes, 2e Wild Magic was pretty wild.)

BritishBill
2010-07-07, 08:09 PM
unfortunately i cant share your pain because i never got to play advanced dnd :(

Ravens_cry
2010-07-07, 08:10 PM
I miss harvesting various bits of monsters because it actually did stuff. Like mucus of aboleths to make some breath water potion etc.

OK, I admit, that's cool. Fiddly and bookkeeping intensive, but cool. Not to hard to implement in D&D 3.X either.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-08, 01:54 AM
OK, I admit, that's cool. Fiddly and bookkeeping intensive, but cool. Not to hard to implement in D&D 3.X either.

I did it for my current campaign. Lot of eyeballing, but cool.

potatocubed
2010-07-08, 03:35 AM
Yes, you had to love wild magic.

In one of the earliest D&D games I ran, I had a wild mage. The player of the wild mage had provided an expanded list of something like 10,000 wild surge results. I thought it would be entertaining, so I okayed it.

So, session one starts. The party met up in prison, having been (individually) set up by the bad guys to take the fall for their bad deeds.

Wild mage casts Nahal's Reckless Dweomer.

*roll roll roll*

Wild surge! Roll on the ginormous table!

*roll roll roll*

A pool of lava appears! Roll for duration!

*roll roll roll*

It's a permanent volcano! It erupts!

...and that was the end of that.

Yrcrazypa
2010-07-08, 05:40 AM
Speaking of the Complete line of books for 2nd Edition, I have a bunch of them. Not sure how many, since I wasn't alive when they came out, but I'm sure I have almost all of them, since my father was really into D&D back then.

Kurald Galain
2010-07-08, 05:46 AM
It's a permanent volcano! It erupts!

...and that was the end of that.
This is why I really dislike wild mages (and Nahal's) as a player, whereas I find them hilarious as a DM.

Honestly, whenever a 2E wild mage comes up, their first approach to any situation tends to be to cast a Nahal's at it.

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-08, 06:04 AM
I'm actually running both Night Below and Dragon Mountain in 3.5 at the moment... Night Below's first book was great, the second...kinda drags a bit (REALLY drags until the City of the Glass Pool).

(In the former case, I do not miss the old gold = XP rule, though I wish I hadn't, since the PCs got so much gold so fast before I realised I'd bogged it! I really could have divided all that gold/platinum/electrum by a literal factor of 10 and they'd still have been ahead of WBL. (In fact, that's what I've been doing...))

My nostaglia, though has never really applied to AD&D, since it was about the forth roleplaying game I played. The first being HeroQuest, the second being Rolemaster and the thrid being Warhammer FRP.

Yes, those first two do constiute one hell of a complexity leap!. RM was the one I do vaguely get nostalgic for. Right up until the time I realise I have to right the annual adventure for that massive crowd of loonies that comprise our favourite party...

Yrcrazypa
2010-07-08, 06:40 AM
Haha, I'm scanning through my old AD&D 2nd edition stuff, the Encyclopedia Magica books specifically, and found the most hilarious magic item ever. A magic ring that looks like any other magic ring, and if you try to wish with it, or do any other magic function, it summons three level 20 chaotic evil wizards to wreak havoc. You can't tell me that isn't awesome.

potatocubed
2010-07-08, 06:45 AM
Ah, the good old ring of three witches. My favourite was the cow bell which, when struck, summoned bovines: cows, bulls, yaks, oxen, gorgons...

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-08, 06:56 AM
I've actually used the ring of spell "turning" and the arrow of sleighing...

Now that is something I do miss, comically cursed items. (Actually, it's so much harder to do cursed items in 3.x. I had to rule Identify doesn't pick them up (only Analyse Dweomer), or there'd be no point at all...)

Kurald Galain
2010-07-08, 06:59 AM
I've actually used the ring of spell "turning" and the arrow of sleighing...

Oh yeah, those were awesome!

Not to mention the Invisible Ring, and the Minionions of Set...

Aotrs Commander
2010-07-08, 07:03 AM
Oh yeah, those were awesome!

Not to mention the Invisible Ring, and the Minionions of Set...

Oh my yes. I thought that last was truly inspired.

Maybe one day...

Optimystik
2010-07-08, 08:56 AM
Yes, you had to love wild magic.

While that does indeed sound... wild... you could easily research a similar spell with similar side effects in 3e if you wanted.


I have to admit that I also miss the class restrictions. They gave each race their own flavor. Now most races are pretty much the same to me.

Racial Substitution Levels are the actually sensible way of doing this. Positive incentive rather than flat "no you can't be that, I don't care what concept you've come up with."


I miss harvesting various bits of monsters because it actually did stuff. Like mucus of aboleths to make some breath water potion etc.

You can do that in 3e too! the gp just abstracts item creation, you could easily create a "reagents" system and a drops-based system, and lower GP or XP crafting costs for players who wade into battle carrying sample jars.



So far I haven't heard anything truly unique to AD&D (that I'd want to carry forward anyway - THAC0 and race-class restrictions can stay dead as far as I'm concerned.)

Axolotl
2010-07-08, 09:21 AM
I've always wanted to run an AD&D game using all the flavour-based rules excluded from later editions like the 9th level fighter being able to create their own freehold complete with a castle and an army, level titles, limited ommunts of high level druids and monks. And XP for gold.

I suppose most of them could be done with 3rd edtion but I want to use them in their natural habitat (although I'd never even consider running a game without XP for gold anymore, even if I were running 3rd or 4th).

SimperingToad
2010-07-08, 11:34 AM
So far I haven't heard anything truly unique to AD&D (that I'd want to carry forward anyway ...)

And you're not likely to either, as you already have made up your mind not to like them.

But that's neither here nor there. It's like arguing over wether a '57 Chevy Belair is more kewl than a 2011 Ford Mustang GT. It's a matter of personal taste.

Lapak
2010-07-08, 11:50 AM
While that does indeed sound... wild... you could easily research a similar spell with similar side effects in 3e if you wanted.While that spell is more likely to result in a Wild Surge, the Surge is part of the basic class mechanic, and works very differently than 3e Wild Magic.

Racial Substitution Levels are the actually sensible way of doing this. Positive incentive rather than flat "no you can't be that, I don't care what concept you've come up with."This, I disagree with. 90%+ of racial sub levels I've seen are no more tied directly to the race they belong to than a class restriction is; it's just focused in the other direction. "Why can't a human receive this training, ever, under any circumstances?" is a perfectly valid question for most of them. I'd say the sensible solution is to enforce societal/cultural class restrictions, and if races in a particular setting happen to be captured by those restrictions it's another story altogether. Barbarian nomads can't be wizards; in one setting that may mean elves can't be wizards and in another it might mean that humans can't, or it may vary in different parts of a setting.

You can do that in 3e too! the gp just abstracts item creation, you could easily create a "reagents" system and a drops-based system, and lower GP or XP crafting costs for players who wade into battle carrying sample jars.Well, sure, you can take any mechanic from either system and slot it into the other without too much difficulty. That doesn't really speak to which has the default set of mechanics that feels better to you as a player, though.

Matthew
2010-07-08, 11:57 AM
And you're not likely to either, as you already have made up your mind not to like them.

But that's neither here nor there. It's like arguing over wether a '57 Chevy Belair is more kewl than a 2011 Ford Mustang GT. It's a matter of personal taste.

Indeed. Whether or not it is true that Optymistik made up his mind in advance or not, preferences and opinions are pretty subjective, and hardly likely to be changed through discourse on the internet, probably even less so than the frequency with which people can be successfully persuaded to change their minds in the face-to-face world, if they do not want to. The best you can hope for is an understanding of why one party prefers X to Y and an acceptance that it is possible to have equally valid and yet diametrically opposed opinions of the value of subjective things. AD&D is hardly likely to be attractive to somebody who prefers the fantasy aesthetics of D20/3e, after all one of its design paradigms was to get away from the "outdated" aesthetics of AD&D.

Optimystik
2010-07-08, 12:12 PM
And you're not likely to either, as you already have made up your mind not to like them.

What I meant was that I haven't seen anything that is both unique and beneficial to the players. Race/class restrictions are unique to AD&D, but all they do is restrict character creation. THAC0 is unique, but it non-intuitively mixes addition for benefits and subtraction for benefits into the same system.

Is there an objective benefit to these things?


While that spell is more likely to result in a Wild Surge, the Surge is part of the basic class mechanic, and works very differently than 3e Wild Magic.

You can still create a spell that says "cast any spell from your spellbook, then roll d% to see what else happens." With 1-20 being nothing else happening, and various effects (like that wall of fire) being attached to the other numbers. In other words, such a spell would self-contain the side-effects, rather than the system doing so.


This, I disagree with. 90%+ of racial sub levels I've seen are no more tied directly to the race they belong to than a class restriction is; it's just focused in the other direction. "Why can't a human receive this training, ever, under any circumstances?" is a perfectly valid question for most of them.

Except Racial subs don't represent training at all; they represent a physiological heritage, not a mental one. This is why Favored and Banned Classes were fail miserably, because no distinction based on psychology can be enforced. Any kind of creature can develop any kind of mindset under the right circumstances of upbringing, but some abilities are just tied to bloodline and DNA.

Why do more Kobolds consider sorcery than wizardry? Because on average, they're better at sorcery. Their racial subs represent this far better than simply listing sorcerer as a favored class - they get Draconic Heritage for free, turn one of their spells into an SLA, and then get bonus spells from their more pronounced draconic bloodline.

Similarly, Elans get Aberrant Manifesting - this stems from their alien physiology, not from any sort of mental technique. Kalashtar get Compound Psicrystals because they are already two brains in one body, and have been bred that way for centuries.

Training has nothing to do with it. No human can gain the above benefits because he lacks the physiology for them, not the psychology.


Well, sure, you can take any mechanic from either system and slot it into the other without too much difficulty. That doesn't really speak to which has the default set of mechanics that feels better to you as a player, though.

There's not much point in arguing over "what feels better" - we'll be here all day.

Matthew
2010-07-08, 12:25 PM
What I meant was that I haven't seen anything that is both unique and beneficial to the players. Race/class restrictions are unique to AD&D, but all they do is restrict character creation. THAC0 is unique, but it non-intuitively mixes addition for benefits and subtraction for benefits into the same system.

Is there an objective benefit to these things?

Doubtful, but then there are no objective drawbacks either, they are just different. It could be argued that something like weapon speed or weapon versus armour charts offer increased granularity and differentiation by weapon type, but they also decrease speed of play. It all depends on what you want out of the game.



There's not much point in arguing over "what feels better" - we'll be here all day.

Very true, but then arguing is not the same as discussion. :smallwink:

Lapak
2010-07-08, 12:26 PM
You can still create a spell that says "cast any spell from your spellbook, then roll d% to see what else happens." With 1-20 being nothing else happening, and various effects (like that wall of fire) being attached to the other numbers. In other words, such a spell would self-contain the side-effects, rather than the system doing so.Oh, I'm not denying that, but it's not creating a parallel at all. It's the difference between, say, playing an ogre fighter as a PC and casting Enlarge on a human fighter; the mechanical benefits can be replicated at any given moment, but the ogre has to deal with the up- and down-sides of being an ogre all the time.

Except Racial subs don't represent training at all; they represent a physiological heritage, not a mental one. This is why Favored and Banned Classes were fail miserably, because no distinction based on psychology can be enforced. Any kind of creature can develop any kind of mindset under the right circumstances of upbringing, but some abilities are just tied to bloodline and DNA.

*snip*Hmm. You've cited some good examples, here; my impression from the ones I've read was that many of the substitutions were less physiology-specific. I don't think much of racial class restrictions, either, and didn't enforce them, but I still think that there's got to be a better way to handle this. (Not least because the sub-levels generally involve trading out some other class feature, which is generally not physiology-specific, and that makes little sense.)

There's not much point in arguing over "what feels better" - we'll be here all day.Except that the title of the thread is 'I miss AD&D', and the "feel" of the edition is pretty heavily involved in why. So while you're absolutely correct, my point is no less relevant.

Zen Monkey
2010-07-08, 12:33 PM
I don't see how we can argue what an elven mind is capable or not capable of learning because they aren't real creatures. It's like arguing the sound a unicorn makes. It makes whatever sound the author wants it to. Maybe 1e/2e dwarves can't be mages because the dwarven brain simply cannot store the magic spells. Maybe it has nothing to do with attitude and everything to do with the presence or absence of some magic gland. It's just as useful as arguing over whether a fireball should 'really' blow the doors off of a small room or how a lightning bolt perfectly reflects off of a rough cave wall. It's magic, a thing that does not exist in the real world, and is defined as being impossible from the start. The demihuman race/class limits make sense in the game world because that's how these imaginary creatures operate, according to their authors. Maybe the unicorn in your particular imagination can breathe fire and makes a noise like a bat, but I can't say 'no, unicorns can't make that sound while breathing fire' without sounding a little bit absurd.

Optimystik
2010-07-08, 12:38 PM
Oh, I'm not denying that, but it's not creating a parallel at all. It's the difference between, say, playing an ogre fighter as a PC and casting Enlarge on a human fighter; the mechanical benefits can be replicated at any given moment, but the ogre has to deal with the up- and down-sides of being an ogre all the time.

Fair enough, but this particular example was not of something being "always on." It was of a unique spell, which by definition only has an effect when cast. So replicating that unique effect in 3rd edition can be done with another spell, and tie all the parameters into the spell itself rather than the magic system as a whole.


Hmm. You've cited some good examples, here; my impression from the ones I've read was that many of the substitutions were less physiology-specific. I don't think much of racial class restrictions, either, and didn't enforce them, but I still think that there's got to be a better way to handle this. (Not least because the sub-levels generally involve trading out some other class feature, which is generally not physiology-specific, and that makes little sense.)

I agree that many times the class feature traded away is arbitrary, and done purely for immersion-breaking balance reasons. If I were to change anything about racial subs, it would be that.

But in some cases they tie it in quite well. For example, the Kalashtar Soulknife trades away the Soulknife's Wild Talent, and then points out that Kalashtar are naturally psionic anyway and thus don't need it. That makes sense.


Except that the title of the thread is 'I miss AD&D', and the "feel" of the edition is pretty heavily involved in why. So while you're absolutely correct, my point is no less relevant.

The "feel" is part of the reason, but not the only part. I am not contending that.

Myself (and others, like Ravens_cry and Kyuubi) are saying the following:

OP and others: "I miss that you can do X"
Us: "You still can do X. Just model it using Y and/or Z."

It might feel different, but nothing is going to feel exactly the same in a new edition. The point is it can still accomplish the desired goal.

Matthew
2010-07-08, 12:46 PM
Myself (and others, like Ravens_cry and Kyuubi) are saying the following:

OP and others: "I miss that you can do X"
Us: "You still can do X. Just model it using Y and/or Z."

It might feel different, but nothing is going to feel exactly the same in a new edition. The point is it can still accomplish the desired goal.

Or, alternatively, you can just play AD&D, since it does feel the same and accomplishes X using X, best of both worlds. :smallwink:

Yora
2010-07-08, 12:54 PM
Now that would be too easy. :smallbiggrin:

Gametime
2010-07-08, 01:22 PM
Or, alternatively, you can just play AD&D, since it does feel the same and accomplishes X using X, best of both worlds. :smallwink:

If you like AD&D, I agree that playing AD&D is the best solution. I assume that the OP has trouble finding games for it, or there wouldn't be any reason to miss it. In that context, adapting a more popular system to replicate some of the features you like about AD&D seems like a decent compromise.

LibraryOgre
2010-07-08, 01:32 PM
If you like AD&D, I agree that playing AD&D is the best solution. I assume that the OP has trouble finding games for it, or there wouldn't be any reason to miss it. In that context, adapting a more popular system to replicate some of the features you like about AD&D seems like a decent compromise.

See, I disagree. If you like playing AD&D, you're probably going to want to play C&C.

But I've been flogging that horse for a while, now.

Gametime
2010-07-08, 01:52 PM
See, I disagree. If you like playing AD&D, you're probably going to want to play C&C.

But I've been flogging that horse for a while, now.

Well, okay, but when I say AD&D I really mean "AD&D and all the various improved and subsystems that have been created in accordance with its basic rules and design philosophies." :smalltongue:

The only thing really necessary to make it feel like AD&D is magic item names that sound like bad pickup lines, in my humble view. Everything else is just trappings.

Lord Vampyre
2010-07-08, 01:58 PM
Except Racial subs don't represent training at all; they represent a physiological heritage, not a mental one. This is why Favored and Banned Classes were fail miserably, because no distinction based on psychology can be enforced. Any kind of creature can develop any kind of mindset under the right circumstances of upbringing, but some abilities are just tied to bloodline and DNA.

This stems from the belief that all creatures have the same pschological make-up. In other words, all races are humans with different physiological abilities. In this I would tend to disagree. This tends to be a matter of flavor.

It is possible that any race can have what would be considered an abberration by some, genetic offshoot by others, or gifted by the divine by someone else. This does not change the fact that the majority of a particular race does not or can not enter certain classes.

It is just as easy to say that dwarves do not have the physiological capability to perform magic, except divine, as it is to say they are psychologically predisposed against magic. This is a matter of flavor.

Yes Pikel Bouldershoulder, who you've mentioned earlier, seemed to be able to something druid like. Considering the mechanics of the game at the time, it is just as easy to say that he was a multiclassed Cleric with the Patron diety of Silvanus. Since Pikel never used any of the druid only powers like shapeshifting, and he was never inducted into any of the druidic orders officially in the books. It all boils down to a matter of flavor.

Optimystik
2010-07-08, 02:07 PM
It is just as easy to say that dwarves do not have the physiological capability to perform magic, except divine, as it is to say they are psychologically predisposed against magic. This is a matter of flavor.

"This race is less likely to perform magic" is indeed flavor.

However, "This race cannot physically perform magic" is crunch, not flavor. Karsites (ToM) have that limitation, and their racial abilities are balanced around it. Dwarves do not.


Yes Pikel Bouldershoulder, who you've mentioned earlier, seemed to be able to something druid like. Considering the mechanics of the game at the time, it is just as easy to say that he was a multiclassed Cleric with the Patron diety of Silvanus. Since Pikel never used any of the druid only powers like shapeshifting, and he was never inducted into any of the druidic orders officially in the books. It all boils down to a matter of flavor.

Wrong again - he used a druid-only spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shillelagh.htm) in the book.

He spent most of his life as a fighter (like most dwarves) before taking up druidism - therefore, not being able to use wild shape is easily explained by simply lacking the levels required to do so.

Can 1st-level druids wild shape in 2e? Pikel was on the border between AD&D and 3e anyway, and was in my estimation a preview of the forthcoming abolishment of race/class restrictions. Canticle was published in 2000, the same year as 3rd Edition's debut.


Or, alternatively, you can just play AD&D, since it does feel the same and accomplishes X using X, best of both worlds. :smallwink:

As Gametime so astutely pointed out, you won't have much luck playing one tabletop game if your friends are all playing another. Modifying the more popular game to include the elements you like from the other is more feasible.

Gametime
2010-07-08, 02:07 PM
This stems from the belief that all creatures have the same pschological make-up. In other words, all races are humans with different physiological abilities. In this I would tend to disagree. This tends to be a matter of flavor.

It is possible that any race can have what would be considered an abberration by some, genetic offshoot by others, or gifted by the divine by someone else. This does not change the fact that the majority of a particular race does not or can not enter certain classes.



I think people object more to the idea that the game rules should dictate exactly what the mindset of a given race is, rather than offering some basic physiological qualities inherent to a race and maybe giving a few suggestions for their culture.

The fact that humans aren't detailed at all, but other races are intensely restricted in what they can or cannot do, is quite a limiting factor when it comes to designing cultures for them.