easing an old school player into 3.x

[big teej]

greetings playgrounders

I may have a player in our summer group who hails from the glory days of first and second edition.

I'm curious what the major differences are between first edition and third edition. as well as examples of how to ease the transition for the new player.


the only one I'm personally aware of is how AC works.

and I can't think of anything to 'ease' that transition aside from explain it


so.
what's different, and how do I explain it?

[Jeraa]

It is all different. Yeah, 1st edition had paladins, saving throws, spells, etc. But how 3.0/3.5 handles them is different. Combat works differently. 1st ed didn't have feats or a skill system like 3.0/3.5 has. Experience points and multiclassing work differently.

Weapons and armor have different stats than in 1st, and the conversion between different types of coins is different.

There are so many changes he is just better off forgetting what he learned in 1st edition and relearn how it works in 3.0/3.5.

[Veyr]

Also, make sure you discuss things like power and magic levels in 3.5 vs. 1E. While 1E had 20 levels also, a Xth level character is 3.5 should be considerably more powerful than an Xth level character in 1E. He would need to adjust his expectations accordingly.

Similarly, magic items aren't (necessarily) rare, special, or optional in 3.5 the way they were in previous editions. For better or worse, the game assumes that you have certain magic items at certain levels. That's a fairly inescapable fact of 3.5 that a lot of players of previous editions don't expect.

[McSmack]

I never played first edition, but I do know that A LOT changed from 2nd to 3rd, probably comparable to the change from 3rd to 4th.

Race/class combinations were restricted. IIRC classes leveled at different XP rates. Multiple attacks were not solved by BaB, but by proficiencies with certain weapons. Feats really weren't there. There were at least 5 different types of saves. Attack rolls were handled differently. Skills didn't exactly exist, they were 'non-weapon proficiencies'. Stats capped at 25.

Lots of stuff is different, some of the terminology is the same.

[PirateLizard]

It is all different. Yeah, 1st edition had paladins, saving throws, spells, etc. But how 3.0/3.5 handles them is different. Combat works differently. 1st ed didn't have feats or a skill system like 3.0/3.5 has. Experience points and multiclassing work differently.

Weapons and armor have different stats than in 1st, and the conversion between different types of coins is different.

There are so many changes he is just better off forgetting what he learned in 1st edition and relearn how it works in 3.0/3.5.

Pretty much that. What he knows from 1st and 2nd is only going to be pertinent in knowing what the core classes are an some mechanics things like hp, and "your character can't carry 800 lbs without a bag of holding, it's called encumbrance."

[Reluctance]

If he picks a single class and sticks with it, they're not too different. Saves, attacks and lots of other stuff have been simplified, but in ways that are easy to pick up. At worst, he'll pick up a spellcaster and play it in a suboptimal, how it was originally intended way.

There are two things to keep away from. First, keep him away from the multiclass system. Working just from the PHB1, it has too much trap potential. Working from too many additional splats, it adds too much complexity. Stick him with a simple character and keep him going.

Second, much of the 3.5 feel is different. If he's comfortable exploring things like the equipment minigame, go with him. If he's one of those old-school fans of "test the player, not the character" and assumes that too much swag is "Monty Haul", you might have to ease him into a new set of base assumptions. That's an issue at the table instead of being a learning one, though.

[Veyr]

There are two things to keep away from. First, keep him away from the multiclass system. Working just from the PHB1, it has too much trap potential. Working from too many additional splats, it adds too much complexity. Stick him with a simple character and keep him going.
Totally disagree. Especially if he's not a caster, multiclassing is an extremely attractive option. He just has to be intelligent about it; it's not exactly hard, he just needs to read the rules and consider his options carefully. That's far more to do with "how much work do you want to put in?" than "how well have you learned this new system?"

Though, I would suggest that you talk to him about characters in general. 3.5 assumes a higher amount of effort is going to be put into character creation, but also assumes that characters are going to last longer, than in 1E. More emphasis is put on backstory and mechanical details than from what I understand of older editions.

Basically, this:

Second, much of the 3.5 feel is different. If he's comfortable exploring things like the equipment minigame, go with him. If he's one of those old-school fans of "test the player, not the character" and assumes that too much swag is "Monty Haul", you might have to ease him into a new set of base assumptions. That's an issue at the table instead of being a learning one, though.
I very much agree with this. There are some basic assumptions that have changed.

[Eldariel]

If working with the old base assumptions, it would actually probably be the easiest for him to make a Wizard, since compared to Mage the only big differences are that they're better in every way, except the best mid level spells are along the lines of Solid Fogs and Walls of Force as opposed to Fireballs and Chain Lightnings.

Much of the same basic truths still apply; magic is still Vancian, Mages are still comparatively squishy as base chassis, Mages still scale better with levels than other classes and Mages abhor multiclassing (outside PRCs). Sure, Mages get more spells, spell saving throw DCs scale with levels, the more powerful spells are less hazardous, etc. but unlike with a Fighter, there's no need for giving a damn about equipment, multiclassing and all that.

[NecroRick]

Line of sight during combat, and interaction with things like concealment
Flat footed
Flanking
Feats
Prestige Classes
Skills
Skill Trick Cheese
Prestige Classes
Increased range of base classes
Greatly increased number of combat options
Fiddly little wording - e.g. ranged attack doesn't mean what you think it means
Keywords - nauseated, sickened etc
Various levels of frightening
Two handed bonus to damage from strength
Accounting, accounting and more accounting (use an online calculator for character creation, it's a nightmare otherwise)

[holywhippet]

Classes in the early versions were more like occupations - a fighter was someone who hits things, a rogue was someone good at stealth and traps etc. In 3rd edition classes are more like building blocks for a character - you might take a few levels in rogue and a lot in fighter to end up with someone who hits things with a bit of talent at stealth and traps.

A lot of a nastiness of the magic system was removed. Haste no longer ages you by a year, identify doesn't cause temporary CON damage etc.

Skills are more formalised than non-weapon proficiencies.

Charisma actually means something now - it isn't a pure dump stat.

In fact, stats in general are more meaningful. You need high INT to be a good wizard for example, earlier editions let you make wizards that were only about average in intelligence with no real problems.

In general, 3rd edition is meant to be a lot less nasty then 1st and 2nd edition.