PDA

View Full Version : Favorite thing from old editions



kjones
2007-08-17, 12:36 AM
With all the hullabaloo about 4th edition, I thought it would do us all some good to reminisce about our favorite things from pre-3.5 D&D. Because when the new stuff comes, sure, it won't be perfect, and they'll get some stuff right and some stuff wrong, but hey, that's D&D.

The Deepwood Sniper PrC from Masters of the Wild really kicked ass, but the changes in concealment rules really made it overpowered or worthless depending on how you interpreted it. Damn shame.

The broken-ness of Haste was amusing, if, well, broken... same thing with Invisibility.

I really liked 1st edition monks... they were yanked from the PHB in 2nd edition but were reintroduced in some sourcebook.

Hell, you know what I really miss? Rolling 3d6 straight down the line, and you kept what you got. Sure, being able to make characters according to some idea is great, and I certainly wouldn't want 4E to go back to the old-school method, but it was just so exciting the first time I made the requirements for a paladin. (Remember when there were hard-and-fast minimum requirements?) Playing a fighter with 1 HP and 10 Str... Those were the days.

I guess I'm just blinded by nostalgia. I think every subsequent edition has brought substantial improvements for the game. I remember defending 3.0 at length against a die-hard 2nd edition player, arguing about rules-heavy vs. rules-light systems and minimalism vs. maximalism. So when I say I miss these things, what I really mean is that I accept their loss in the face of progress.

But... damn. Those were the days. When men were men, women were women, and your first twenty-sider was worn smooth by the time you made name-level.

Matthew
2007-08-17, 12:39 AM
0 Level Characters and the Classic D&D Attribute Bonus Pattern, I missed them so much that I keep them in my House Ruled 2e Game!

1e Rangers whose Favoured Enemy Class Feature *really* made a difference.

Bosh
2007-08-17, 12:44 AM
I rather miss some aspects of the old multiclassing system. Sure it was inflexible but it didn't force you to suck horrifically at lower levels and have to enter certain specific PrCs if you wanted certain multiclass combinations to be at all playable.

I miss fighter/magic-user/rogues :(


Classic D&D Attribute Bonus Pattern
What's that?

Matthew
2007-08-17, 12:47 AM
What's that?

Download Labyrinth Lord from Goblinoid games for free and you'll see it, but essentially:

3 = -3
4-5 = -2
6-8 = -1
9-12 = +0
13-15 = +1
16-17 = +2
18 = +3

Much less in the way of Bonus inflation problems.

Lemur
2007-08-17, 12:54 AM
I liked the organization of priest spells into "spheres". It helped conceptualize priests a lot better, in addition to facilitating homebrewing custom priests easily.

Fhaolan
2007-08-17, 12:54 AM
This is going to seem stupid, but sometimes I miss the 1st edition DMG. It was horrible for finding anything specific, but every time I opened it, I'd find some strange little tidbit or random table that would send my imagination down a path it hadn't been down before. I'm not sure how you could ever really replicate that in a modern rulebook.

Still out of 1st, and now 3.5, I liked the regional handbooks. In 1st it was Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide. In 3.5 it's Sandstorm, Frostbite, and so on.

The 2nd edition Historical Campaign sourcebooks were good, really. It was a tough job to map 2nd edition D&D into 'real' historical settings, and I appreciated the effort.

And, in many ways I liked OD&D simplicity, for fast and furious games. While lots of options are nice when you're trying to be very specific, sometimes you just want to kick in doors and blast some orcs.

Funkyodor
2007-08-17, 02:02 AM
I liked the Druid spell list and spell progression in 1st ed. (3rd level spells as a lvl 3 druid? Yes please!) I liked the Double Specialization rules in 1st ed Unearthed Arcana. I liked alot of the 1st and 2nd ed. magic items that didn't make the crossover to 3.x ed. I liked the sphere cleric system in 2nd ed also.

Sebastian
2007-08-17, 02:27 AM
I like 0 level characters, make much more sense to use than NPC classes (20th level commoner? come on! :smallsigh: )

I like spheres for priest spells, beat domain hands down

I like memorization time for casters (one of the reasons casters are overpowered in 3rd edition is that they are 9 hours rest (a Rope Trick) away to be 100% power , this mean that they have no reasons to not use all their spells every single day, but that is a different story)

But more than everything else, and I'm sure many would disagree with me on this) i like the magic item creation system from second edition, IMHO the best magic item creation system of every RPG I ever read, where the 3rd edition is the absolutely worst one with his "insert gold and xp on the left get magic item on the right" mentality.

Charity
2007-08-17, 05:20 AM
Much less in the way of Bonus inflation problems.

Argh I hated the stats! For a start the tables were all different

Str
3 = -3
4-5 = -2
6-8 = -1
9-14 = +0
15-17= +1
18 = +1 (+3/6 if you were a ftr)

So if you didn't have an 18 as a ftr you were crud compared to someone who did, hence the proliferation of half orcs in 1st ed.
Dex
3 = -3
4-5 = -2
6-8 = -1
9-14 = +0
15 = +1
16 = +2
17 = +3
18 = +4
It made characters horribly stat reliant, a character with 6 15's would in fact be utterly dreadful compared to one with a single 18. Sorry Matthew, you touched a nerve there...


If there is anything I hated more than this about 1st Ed it could only have been rolling HP at first level and getting a 1.. or maybe how ftr's were crud compared to rangers and Paladins, if you had the stats there was just no reason not to be a ranger (2d8 HP at 1st level I recall)


Annyyway, I am supposed to say what I liked about it.

The simplicity was a bonus, the old saving throws, the flexability, magic items were a bonus not a right... I loved old 1st ed, though I will admit to prefering 3rd ed these days, we didn't really play 2nd ed. Mostly we had moved on to other systems (Runequest, Rolemaster, MERP, GURPS, Powers and Perils Shadowrun, Shatterzone, Traveller etc.. heck where did we find the time?)

dorisfrog
2007-08-17, 05:57 AM
my favorite thing was the minimum stats needed to play certain character types , people use the new rules to much to jump stages by taking classes that had the extra feats instead of going the long way so you would have a ranger /fighter/ rogues wandering around and you have to ask you're self why in a real world would you do that (well we all know why).

Gmmaster42
2007-08-17, 06:07 AM
Ah... the good old days when Keen and Improved Critical stacked... good times... good times...

The Prince of Cats
2007-08-17, 06:38 AM
The mind boggles at people who seem to think 3.0 is an old system.

I prefer the current stat bonus system. Linear progression works better in so many ways than the whole "6-15 is all +0" approach, which made characters a little too generic.

I also miss kits. Adding base classes to emulate kits (Swashbuckler, for example) just dilutes the base classes, while prestige-classes don't do it for me.

Charisma for charisma's sake... Nobody seems to play social characters in 3.x unless they already need the charisma for their spell-casting. I mean, the 2e swashbuckler or gallant kits made charisma an attractive proposition.

The Cat Lord (we are talking 1e here) - an enigmatic entity that may have been a deity but had the same opinion of humanity as the average Great Old One.

Planescape, Darksun, Birthright. Even (a tiny bit) Spelljammer.

Charity
2007-08-17, 06:52 AM
my favorite thing was the minimum stats needed to play certain character types , people use the new rules to much to jump stages by taking classes that had the extra feats instead of going the long way so you would have a ranger /fighter/ rogues wandering around and you have to ask you're self why in a real world would you do that (well we all know why).

Ah I know what you're saying, but i like the fact that a certain amount of diversification doesn't hurt you too badly in 3rd ed.
All this, I'm a fighter and I'll be a fighter till I die malarky is much more unrealistic, people change, their motives change, their goals, their interests, their abilities, why not their class?
I agree that they need to stop frontloading all the class abilities so people (like me) can't cherry pick those that suit them, but why wouldn't your character want to be good at what he wants to be good at as early as he can?

The Prince of Cats
2007-08-17, 06:57 AM
One thing amused me in 2e... Demi-humans could only multiclass (two classes at once), while humans could only dual-class (take one class, then leave it permanently to start another class, gaining benefits of the first class only when the second reaches the same level).

This was fine, except that the fluff for elves describes them following one path and then leaving it to pursue another. If describes dual-classing, even though elves cannot dual-class.

Dausuul
2007-08-17, 07:06 AM
My favorite thing from earlier editions? Easy. In Classic D&D (not AD&D), the progression from the Basic set, to Expert, to Companion, to Master, with emphasis on a different role for the PCs at each level. In Basic (levels 1-3), you were simple dungeon crawlers; in Expert (levels 4-14) you were adventuring in the wilderness; in Companion (levels 15-25) you were nobles with lands and titles to defend; and in Master (levels 26-36) you were dealing with matters that affected the whole world.

I felt that progression added a sense of growth and change to the characters, a sense that was lacking in AD&D's (and, sadly, 3E's) relentless focus on the dungeon crawl.

GNUsNotUnix
2007-08-17, 07:14 AM
3e powered up a lot of classes, which, while not all that bad, had its downsides. One of the best things about 2e was the mentality in most games that adventuring was scary. Sure, some of it is just the style of DMing, but 2e always seemed a much darker, harder-to-advance-in world.

Charity
2007-08-17, 07:18 AM
Dausuul,
In fairness there are plenty of published non-dungeon adventures for 3rd ed and of course you can make up whatever you want.
It is only a question of running the campaign how you see fit, you could do that with any edition... or indeed nearly any RPG.

Heh in basic Elf was a class, and they were teh über as I recall.

DraPrime
2007-08-17, 07:26 AM
I liked the fact that the assassin was a subclass of the rogue in 1e. I always was happy when I managed to succeed in getting psionics in 2e.

Dausuul
2007-08-17, 07:33 AM
Dausuul,
In fairness there are plenty of published non-dungeon adventures for 3rd ed and of course you can make up whatever you want.
It is only a question of running the campaign how you see fit, you could do that with any edition... or indeed nearly any RPG.

Heh in basic Elf was a class, and they were teh über as I recall.

Sure, but the 3E system is built entirely around dungeon-style adventuring, all the way from 1st level newbies to 20th level superheroes. And I've yet to see a published 3E adventure that put the PCs in any role other than "wandering knights-errant." (In fact, it seems like ninety-five percent of published 3E adventures put the PCs in the role of "wandering knights-errant who stumble upon a plot by an evil outsider or deity to open a gate to the Material Plane and thereby wreak havoc upon the entire world," but that's another issue.)

The idea of the Classic D&D progression was that characters reaching higher levels would naturally move from being provincial bumpkins just learning how to use a sword, to footloose wanderers, to occupying positions of power and responsibility in the campaign world; for example, the Companion set had rules for gaining followers, upkeep and taxes for dominions, and mass combat. And when I say mass, I mean mass, as in hundreds or thousands of troops, not the skirmish-level stuff you see in D&D Minis today.

Of course, this being Classic D&D, the rules were clunky, incoherent, and poorly planned. But the attempt was there. If you wanted to do something like that in 3E, you'd have to homebrew it from start to finish. The system provides no support for such an approach and sometimes hinders it.

dorisfrog
2007-08-17, 07:38 AM
I also liked looking up the charts to see what you have hit with your mighty attacks (good old ad&d) plus magic items seemed harder to get where in 3 E everyones wandering around with hundreds of magic items , oh one very good thing about 3 E is that if you want to be a fighter you can branch out and fight in hundreds of styles where in early editions you wandered around with a long sword as lets face it nearly every magic weapon you found was a long sword . When younger I played a lot of role master (what ever happened to that) and you could branch out in that but it did take you three days to role a character up (oh yes indeed), ah the good old days

Charity
2007-08-17, 07:47 AM
Space master small systems op to turn on that lightswitch :smallbiggrin:

Rolemaster was too darn deadly, you were continously sustaining crippling or just plain fatal injuries.
*rolls to hit* ... *examines chart*... Ok thats 14 damage and an A piercing crit...*rolls crit* ... *examines chart*... OK you've been shot through both ears and you're dead... *three hours of character generation ensue*

Thats what happened to rolemaster matey.

Jimmy Discordia
2007-08-17, 08:25 AM
I know a lot of people are going to disagree with these three choices, but these are what I miss most about 2nd edition (which is the edition I played every couple of weeks throughout high school):

-More complex stat tables. I know, simplicity is good and everything, but I liked a particular Strength score giving different bonuses to hit and damage, a given chance to bend bars/lift gates (which could substitute for any really hard Strength check), a particular carry weight... on a related topic, it was cool that ability scores over 19 were really special. A Titan only had 25 Strength, and without some major mojo backing them up, it was basically impossible for a PC's strength to get that high (for those who never played 2E, you didn't get periodic ability score boosts, and magic items that pumped up your stats were much rarer).

-Different experience tables for different classes. Sure, a paladin was better in (almost) every way than a LG fighter, but it took him longer to gain levels. That's a balancing factor I was sad to see go in 3E. If memory serves, it took wizards more than twice as long to level as rogues, at least in the lower levels. Rogues did kind of suck, but they got the quickest level progession to make up for it.

-Barriers to entry for certain classes. Again, we'll use the paladin as an example, because it had the highest barriers to entry for a core class - including a 17 charisma, extremely rare if you were rolling 3d6 straight down the line, and still very good with my favored method, the now-standard 4d6 drop lowest, assign as needed. Qualifying to be a special class was, well, special.

Of course, the 3E rules are easier to learn and quicker to play, but in 2E when I was DM I never stuck all that closely to the rules anyway. If you wanted to do something and I couldn't remember the rules off the top of my head, or look them up on the inside of my screen, I just winged it. I still do that on the increasingly rare occasions that I DM, but now it seems that players are more apt to cite rules for every little thing they want to do; granted, this is probably more a function of whom I play the game with than the particular edition that I'm playing.

Spiryt
2007-08-17, 09:34 AM
I was playing only Baldurs Gate and similar cRPG based on 2ed, but I can say that I liked casting system much more.

Spells were really diversed, more powerful spells were taking longer time to cast! Perfectly logic for me, and wizards, while powerful weren't able to rule so much. They could easily be interupted - you could see that staying in the middle of battle and waving hands around wasn't safe thing.

Fighters could really easilly beat the crap out of clerics and druids - they were for fighting for Gygax sake. But clerics had their powerfull spells - and everything was in order.

ALOR
2007-08-17, 09:46 AM
favorite things from the past

D&D rules Cyclopedia:
i absolutley loved the maps in the back of this book, only the 2e forgotten realms maps have come close to equalling them. 3e campaign setting maps have sucked imho.

2e:
I loved the cleric spheres. They make so much more sense than domains.
edit: Infravision was so much neater than black and white darkvision of 3e

Ruerl
2007-08-17, 09:54 AM
the old AD&D where necromancy where healing as well as killing stuff, positive and negative energy instead of just all "bwahaha".

I still cringe when I look in a 3rd edition or beyoind spell list and see the healing spells as conjuration.

Balkash
2007-08-17, 10:15 AM
This is going to seem stupid, but sometimes I miss the 1st edition DMG. It was horrible for finding anything specific, but every time I opened it, I'd find some strange little tidbit or random table that would send my imagination down a path it hadn't been down before. I'm not sure how you could ever really replicate that in a modern rulebook.

i have to say i agree. when i started playing D&D it was with one of the 1e DMG that i bought off ebay. i looked into it, and everything was interesting. i love the whole section on how to build castles and seige and defense. i always thought that was cool

Renx
2007-08-17, 10:38 AM
Infravision.

Proper Wishes.

15/15/15/15 Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Thieves

Magic missiles with no silly 'max 5 missiles' rule.

Weredwarf
2007-08-17, 11:11 AM
The main thing i miss was how the fighter could actully out-melee the cleric and druid.

I also miss when magic items and high stats were special now days a 20th level can go to your generic magic shop(which every town seems to have) and buy multiple +5 weapons.

Jimmy Discordia
2007-08-17, 11:18 AM
I also miss when magic items and high stats were special now days a 20th level can go to your generic magic shop(which every town seems to have) and buy multiple +5 weapons.

I already talked about high stats being special, but I should have included magic items, too. Giving every magic item a "book price" and a simple means of crafting makes magic too commonplace, as far as I'm concerned. Powerful magic (or any magic, depending on the general level of magic you like) should be hard to come by. Crafting a powerful item should be a quest in itself. Even a +1 weapon should be treasured by someone.

Of course, I can house rule whatever I like about magic. Having a book price for every item does have one advantage: it makes it easier to create characters at higher than level 1 and give them a complement of magic items appropriate to their level. But I don't like the idea of magic shops anywhere outside of a large city on a high-magic world, or even a planar metropolis. Listing a book price for every magic item short of artifact-level just encourages them.

Rayek
2007-08-17, 11:26 AM
Easy: The Rules Cyclopedia. Everything you need to play a game of D&D in one tidy package. It's my most treasured D&D book. The bean counters at Wizards will probably never let a book like it get published again.

RAGE KING!
2007-08-17, 11:43 AM
thats very easy. How cheap the books are nowadays.

- I never actually played any DnD before 3.5

kjones
2007-08-17, 11:50 AM
God damn do I miss infravision (anyone remember its bastard cousin ultravision? So useless...). I remember having an hour-long argument with my brother as to whether or not you could read a book with infravision. This was before we had really figured out that there was no "right" or "wrong" in D&D, only "what the DM sez".

Low-light vision? Darkvision? Pfah! Give me infravision any day.

OTOH, it's not really fair to say that 2e had balanced spellcasters. Clerics and (definitely) druids certainly weren't quite as powerful as their wizard counterparts, but full spellcasters were still thoroughly made of win, not even counteracted by the fact that they needed more XP to level. Baldur's Gate and other CRPG's didn't effectively model this because their spellcasting lacked the flexibility of PnP RPGs.

Finally, I miss having fixed XP values for monsters. I know intellectually that the CR/EL system makes much more sense on so many levels, but there's something so viscerally satisfying about a 10th level fighter hacking his way through a dungeon full of orcs and picking up XP like he was picking up pennies off the street. Can't do that anymore.

EDIT: Rage King, are you saying that the books are cheaper nowadays? Because I was going to say that I miss the days of the $30 core book, where you could pick up all three for less than a C-note. $40 isn't that much of a difference, but the fact that you have to pay more than $100 makes it seem like a lot more.

Renx
2007-08-17, 12:06 PM
I think he means how cheap the old books are today. I guess.

MrNexx
2007-08-17, 12:10 PM
1) NWPs. A very elegant system, IMO, for representing skills that didn't have a lot to do with adventuring.

2) Character building being done at 1st level. In 1e/2e, almost all of your character building was done at 1st level. You may have a couple advanced weapon proficiencies for your fighter, you may be planning on dual-classing, so you'll have to change a few things, but I don't have to do a whole lot of mechanical character building once the DM says "So you meet in a tavern..."

3) Slower rate of advancement. Where did a lot of 2nd edition games run? About levels 1-9. Twelve was huge; twenty was where demigods hung out. You looked forward to each level because it was a goal, not because it would let you introduce the next phase in your character plan.

4) More parity between classes. Sounds weird to say it, but fighters were important to have, even into the 9th level, because they did a significant amount of damage and controlled the battlefield; their saves weren't the best, but they often reduced wizards to picking at their HPs.

Spiryt
2007-08-17, 12:25 PM
2) Character building being done at 1st level. In 1e/2e, almost all of your character building was done at 1st level. You may have a couple advanced weapon proficiencies for your fighter, you may be planning on dual-classing, so you'll have to change a few things, but I don't have to do a whole lot of mechanical character building once the DM says "So you meet in a tavern..."


I basically agree with all your points, but not with that one. I think that development of character options are to humble even in 3.5 edition.

I remember playing Baldurs Gate 2. My archer gained another level... So I clicked "new level". Rolled HP (no more after 11 or so level if I remember good). Then clicked "agree".

I wished for something to change, choose, to make character individual so much...

bosssmiley
2007-08-17, 12:46 PM
0 Level Characters and the Classic D&D Attribute Bonus Pattern, I missed them so much that I keep them in my House Ruled 2e Game!

0 level characters. Oh wow, nostalgie de jour!

Favourite eggy old school-isms:

The crazy, illogical whimsical lunacy that was the Mystara setting.
The sheer kludgy wrongness of percentile strength in AD&D. Even though you hated the mechanical inelegance you know having 18/00 was rock.
88 hp red dragon, 3 breath weapons/day, each doing damage equal to it's hp. (mother) :smalleek:
Wishes that ~always~ came back to bite you in the butt. :smallamused:
Bouncy chain lightning. "12d6 on you, 11d6 on your buddy, 10d6 on you again, 9d6 on him, 8d6 on you, 7d6 on him..."
Orange spined books
Grubbian physics
Athar

WildBill
2007-08-17, 12:58 PM
I started playing in 2ed, and there are a lot of things I really miss.
Adventures were adventures, death was around every corner. I think that 3e made survivability too high. I miss fighters being competent. I miss wizards needing significant downtime to regain powerful spells. Magic items being special has also been touched on, as has variable experience. Face it it's easier to learn to swing a sword or pick a lock than to reshape reality with a single word. I really like both systems, but 2e will always have a nostalgic edge to me. Just my 2 cents

ALOR
2007-08-17, 01:13 PM
Infravision.


oh wow i totally forgot about infravision.
(edits previous post to include infravision in his likes)
:smallbiggrin:

Rayek
2007-08-17, 01:14 PM
I miss the cheesy 1st Edition artwork.

Spiryt
2007-08-17, 01:17 PM
I started playing in 2ed, and there are a lot of things I really miss.
Adventures were adventures, death was around every corner. I think that 3e made survivability too high. I miss fighters being competent. I miss wizards needing significant downtime to regain powerful spells. Magic items being special has also been touched on, as has variable experience. Face it it's easier to learn to swing a sword or pick a lock than to reshape reality with a single word. I really like both systems, but 2e will always have a nostalgic edge to me. Just my 2 cents

It seems that 2 ed was really more climatic and more "magic", while 3.5 is full of enlarged cleric/psychic warrior/ champions of Cheesus swinging around with spiked chains.

I really hope that they will take a good look at 2ed while making a 4rth one.

ALOR
2007-08-17, 01:19 PM
Easy: The Rules Cyclopedia. Everything you need to play a game of D&D in one tidy package. It's my most treasured D&D book. The bean counters at Wizards will probably never let a book like it get published again.

Alright somebody else showing love for the Rules Cyclopedia. It is an absolutly fantastic book isn't it?

dorisfrog
2007-08-17, 01:24 PM
owning a vorpal dancing sword +5 or was it +10 can't remember.

Jimmy Discordia
2007-08-17, 01:53 PM
0 level characters. Oh wow, nostalgie de jour Bouncy chain lightning. "12d6 on you, 11d6 on your buddy, 10d6 on you again, 9d6 on him, 8d6 on you, 7d6 on him..."
[/LIST]

Ooooh... another thing I really miss! The old chain lightning was so much cooler. :smallbiggrin:

Weredwarf
2007-08-17, 02:08 PM
3) Slower rate of advancement. Where did a lot of 2nd edition games run? About levels 1-9. Twelve was huge; twenty was where demigods hung out. You looked forward to each level because it was a goal, not because it would let you introduce the next phase in your character plan.


I do agree that 3.5 levels up to fast, and that level 10+ should be "teh uber", but i don't think we should go back to the days of 7 xp kobolds

Chris_Chandler
2007-08-17, 02:37 PM
Nostalgia, eh?

Dragonlance in Ansalon with Dragonlances (damage equal to rider and mount's HP to an evil dragon = *splat*, no worse than that, like no bones left splat)

Playing a dwarf... just a dwarf.

Weapon proficiency actually meaning something. I have proficiency in... Quarterstaff, longsword, Lance, and Longbow. Period. Later on I'll spec in longsword and then you can stand back and watch the cheese. I understand the point of all-encompassing proficiency, but I don't like it. It dilute the very flavor of the game for a book-nosing, skinny armed nerd who understands the secrets of the universe to have ever bothered to become so familiar with five distinct weapons that he could be dangerous is anathema, and it serves to make weapon choice really a non-issue. Why do you think many folks say "don't bother to pick up an exotic weapon unless you a. pick up a spiked chain or b. plan on going exotic weapon master"? It's because feats are like gold, man, and accurately reflect the careful consideration one must have to chose a personal weapon. I remember that my 2e druid carried a magical scimitar on his back for about a year of game time until he was able to put a weapon proficiency in it. That was a huge RP boon! My character earned the slot, because he practiced with the scimmy for a long time before actually being dangerous with it.

Fighters with saves that made wizards go, "um... I'm gonna go nuke the cleric."

1/2 elven Fighter/mage/thief

Rules for High Mastery (in C&T)

Feats and Skills. The bread and butter of the system. Personally, I think they took a page or two from Steve Jackson's playbook and then rewrote it, but I like the improvement.

I actually like having the rules for magic item creation. The actual creation of these items, it seems to me, seems to run rampant. Um, first off, it's scads of gold and materials. It's more difficult than putting coins in a slot and getting a coke, though that seems to be the running attitude. It's easy to non-punitively control item creation in game by just having reasonable expectations of what can and cannot be done. I believe the phrase used in the text, specifically, is RAW MATERIALS.

F: Well, I wanna make a vorpal dancing sword!

W: Okay, that takes the wealth of a mid-sized nation.

F: Oh, I've got that right here! In... these three wagons.

W: Great... great. Okay, well, I'm going to need you to pick up this list of items, so that I can create that for you. That first one is probably the most readily attainable... I just don't usually have the need to keep red dragon blood "in stock" as they say.

F: Wait - I've got the gold! Here, take it, then make me a sword! Come on, magic something up, will you?

W: Look, the only sword I can make with just the gold would weigh 3 tons and even you couldn't lift it, not to mention that it couldn't support it's own weight. We all know that I can't turn stuff into gold. What makes you think I can turn gold into stuff, Fighty McGhee?

F: Uh, fine, one red dragon, coming up... extortionist...

W: Hey, be glad I'm willing to settle for middling reagants! The best vorpal swords come from tarrasque tongue!

Matthew
2007-08-17, 02:39 PM
Argh I hated the stats! For a start the tables were all different

Str
3 = -3
4-5 = -2
6-8 = -1
9-14 = +0
15-17= +1
18 = +1 (+3/6 if you were a ftr)

So if you didn't have an 18 as a ftr you were crud compared to someone who did, hence the proliferation of half orcs in 1st ed.
Dex
3 = -3
4-5 = -2
6-8 = -1
9-14 = +0
15 = +1
16 = +2
17 = +3
18 = +4
It made characters horribly stat reliant, a character with 6 15's would in fact be utterly dreadful compared to one with a single 18. Sorry Matthew, you touched a nerve there...

Charity, you are thinking of the AD&D Tables! I hated them as well. I'm talking about the Basic/Classic Dungeons & Dragons Attribute Tables, which were all pretty much consistant and are the model for Castles & Crusades. Check my original post to see the distribution.

bosssmiley
2007-08-17, 04:16 PM
Charity, your thinkingof the AD&D Tables! I hated them as well. I'm talking about the Basic/Classic Dungeons & Dragons Attribute Tables, which were all pretty much consistant and are the model for Castles & Crusades. Check my original post to see the distribution.

Was it one of you grognards who recommended OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/) (basically 'open source Basic-Companion D&D') to me? Must 'a' been... :smallwink:

Matthew
2007-08-17, 04:20 PM
Probably :smallbiggrin:. Of course, OSRIC is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, what you want is Labyrinth Lord (http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.htm) for Basic Dungeons & Dragons. Mind, I doubt it was a recommendation without caveats...

Curmudgeon
2007-08-17, 04:52 PM
Darkness. You know, the real thing, not this "shadowy illumination" junk.

The old divine pantheons, taken from real historical and literary sources instead of the largely indistinguishable WotC creations. What's wrong with Thor and Odin as divine beings? They had style, as did Aphrodite, Hermes, and Diana.

Weapon proficiency groups. Having to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Heavy Repeating Crossbow and gaining no benefit to Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Light Repeating Crossbow is pretty wonky.

Divine intervention. We've got formulaic Miracle spells, which is OK, but having an actual deity show up and just change the rules comepletely for a bit is the quintessential stuff of fantasy gaming.

Godhand
2007-08-17, 05:18 PM
Magic Missile being a deadly useful spell. In the earlier editions most enemies had far less health than in 3.0/3.5. Being able to do a consistent 20-25 damage for next to nothing was fantastic. It was also one of the few spells that hurt almost anything. Demons, Devils, Will-o-Wisps (I hate will-o-wisps)

Maybe no one else does, but I miss THAC0 (to-hit-armor-class-0.) and having a -9 AC. It was craziness!

Dawnstrider_Moogle
2007-08-17, 05:39 PM
Above all else I miss Spelljammer. Exploring space in boats powered by spell-casting? Carrying your own personal air bubble? Dwarven citadels? So awesome!

Not to mention the Spelljammer itself...way too cool :o)

Indon
2007-08-17, 07:00 PM
The old divine pantheons, taken from real historical and literary sources instead of the largely indistinguishable WotC creations. What's wrong with Thor and Odin as divine beings? They had style, as did Aphrodite, Hermes, and Diana.


Deities and Demigods contains the Greek, Norse, and Egyptian pantheons. I own it for 3.0 (may be 3.5).

As for things that I miss:

-The spell creating system.

-Getting a keep and followers as a Fighter!

-Longer spell memorization.

Rob Knotts
2007-08-17, 07:29 PM
What I really miss from AD&D was the advantage of playing a fighter. All the other classes needed special rules for thier abilities, the fighter was just better at doing something everyone else could do (melee combat). What this meant was playing a fighter allowed for a much more straightforward experience, while people playing other classes constantly had to argue with the DM how one of thier spells or special abilities worked. This was especially true of the later years of AD&D before 2nd edition came out, when most full time DMs had something like 100 pages of typed, handwritten, or xeroxed* house rules. The AD&D fighter's simplicity was eternal, and rarely had to suffer under the mountain of house rules aimed at other classes.

*House rules based on articles from magazines like Dragon & White Dwarf.

CASTLEMIKE
2007-08-17, 07:43 PM
O Level characters.

The Keep on the Border, The Village of Hommlet and the Temple of Elemental Evil, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, Vecna Live, Die Vecna Die, Treasure Hunt, The Ruins of Myth Drannor, Waterdeep Box Set with Blue Alley and the Undermountain Bex Sets.

Glantri Kingdom of Mages, The Grand Duchy of Karameikos, Mark of Amber and Test of the Warlords.

Zakhara the Land of Fate, Treasure Maps, Dozen and 1 Adventures, Ruined Kingdoms, The Shair class.

Matthew
2007-08-17, 07:58 PM
Oh yeah, I miss the sheer number of the old Settings and Adventures for sure.


Rob, what about Weapons versus Armour Modifiers, that must have come up once or twice in the course of play as a Fighter?

Jerthanis
2007-08-17, 08:19 PM
I miss several things from old editions, but above and beyond I miss the trust we used to have in the DM. Perhaps this is a personal problem, but in 1st/2nd ed, when the DM said, "You hear rumbling footsteps approaching, suddenly the door shatters apart and standing in the doorway is an Ogre Mage, looking for blood... roll initiative" and we're level 1, we'd squeal in terror and hope to god we pull through (It was a real manly squeal, I swear.) In 3rd edition, we say, "Are you trying to TPK us? Jeez, this isn't fair! It's way above our CR, we don't have the resources, it'd kill our fighter in one hit on minimum damage, this is BS!"... We're huge whiny cowards now.

Also, remember when "Rules Lawyer" was about the biggest insult around the table? When someone disputed a ruling by the DM in the old days, and pulled out the book to look up the page the rule was detailed on, slowing down the game, it was met with harsh glares and a stern word by the DM, supported by everyone there. Now when a DM rules off the cuff it's treated like he's making a mistake, and that in not having encyclopedic knowledge of every rule, he's failing as a DM. Players who "help" their DM with reminders of RAW are the standard, rather than the one guy no one likes, and I'm always appalled when that person ends up being me.

I guess both of those are strictly player etiquette rules and have nothing to do with the actual rulebooks, and are as much my own fault, and are possibly localized problems... but I do miss the old editions for that.

from a raw mechanics point of view, I don't miss any specific thing about earlier editions, but sometimes I do get nostalgic and think about making a character using 2nd edition. Also, lack of CR/WBL mechanics made adventures feel more risky, and magic items more special.

Matthew
2007-08-17, 08:24 PM
Yeah, that is a Player/Dungeon Master issue, but it is one artificially fostered by 3e; it's a direct result of having so many specific rules and pretence about 'balance'. Still, it shouldn't be difficult to overcome.

bugsysservant
2007-08-17, 10:06 PM
I miss simplicity.

I miss that feeling of wonderment when you leveled up/rolled a high ability score/obtianed a magic item.

I miss character themes that can be covered in four classes+demihuman racial classes, rather than a PrC/base class for every concievable fantasy role.

I miss encumbrance. When a ten foot pole was much harder to carry than a block of metal the same weight, and having a backpack actually meant something.

But I really miss when the rules were just guidelines for a DMs imagination, where there was no rule 0 because DMs were above all rules. Now it seems that when a player creates the next Pun-Pun the DM sighs, curses WoTC, and allows the player to wreak havoc with his carefully structured campaign. Maybe it was just me, but my DM would never have let such a thing occur. He realised that he wasn't bound by faulty rules, and that his word was higher even than that of the almighty publisher. Sigh.

Bagera
2007-08-18, 01:23 AM
I miss the Tower shield rules from 3rd edition they made it worth having.

RobotsITP
2007-08-18, 01:20 PM
Even though I didn't get to use it
I thought skills and powers from second ed was a kinda neat idea
I think it just got supplanted by the skills and feats though of 3rd ed

I wish they had the signature weapon though back from 2nd ed.
A weapon that you had held onto for such a long time
that it was like a part of you. You know kinda like Thor's hammer (Mjolnir-I had to look it up to spell that) or like Arthur's Excalibur.
They kinda did this with the ancestral relic feat
but what was cool with the signature weapon was that you couldn't loose
it. and even if you did there was always a way to find it again.

Starsinger
2007-08-18, 07:52 PM
Huh.. a thread about stuff people like in old editions? I expected Nagora to be here, posting the joys of older editions.

But I miss stuff in older editions too. I miss the silliness, like the monster manual saying "Gnolls are half gnomes half trolls."

kjones
2007-08-18, 10:02 PM
I kinda liked it when Cleric spells only went up to 7th level. Clerics make more sense as secondary spellcasters anyway.

Matthew
2007-08-18, 10:29 PM
I miss the Tower shield rules from 3rd edition they made it worth having.

Man, I *really* hate the 3e Tower Shield. It makes me miss the 2e Shield Rules.


Even though I didn't get to use it
I thought skills and powers from second ed was a kinda neat idea
I think it just got supplanted by the skills and feats though of 3rd ed

Actually, the relationship between 3e and the Player's Option Series is very close. For instance, several Feats first appeared in the Dungeon Master's Option: High Level Campaigning.


I wish they had the signature weapon though back from 2nd ed.
A weapon that you had held onto for such a long time
that it was like a part of you. You know kinda like Thor's hammer (Mjolnir-I had to look it up to spell that) or like Arthur's Excalibur.
They kinda did this with the ancestral relic feat
but what was cool with the signature weapon was that you couldn't loose
it. and even if you did there was always a way to find it again.

I think that your wish will be granted with regard to this.


I kinda liked it when Cleric spells only went up to 7th level. Clerics make more sense as secondary spellcasters anyway.

Agreed. I would have three Tiers of Spell Casters.

Starsinger
2007-08-18, 10:33 PM
Agreed. I would have three Tiers of Spell Casters.

But we do... Primary: Wizard, Sorc, Psion, Cleric, Druid, etc.
Secondary: Bard, Spell Thief
Tertiary: Paladin, Ranger

Matthew
2007-08-18, 10:35 PM
Heh, yes that's true, I should have said Clerics would be in the second Tier and the difference would be more explicit.
[Edit]
Good to sea Flea back.

Starsinger
2007-08-18, 10:37 PM
Heh, yes that's true, I should have said Clerics would be in the second Tier and the difference would be more explicit.
[Edit]
Good to sea Flea back.

Yeah, I missed him too. :smallamused:

MrNexx
2007-08-18, 11:19 PM
I basically agree with all your points, but not with that one. I think that development of character options are to humble even in 3.5 edition.

I remember playing Baldurs Gate 2. My archer gained another level... So I clicked "new level". Rolled HP (no more after 11 or so level if I remember good). Then clicked "agree".

I wished for something to change, choose, to make character individual so much...

I think you missed my point. You, personally, may have wanted some mechanical change in Baldur's Gate II (which was not, BTW, representative of real RPGs; a good game, by all accounts, but as different from an RPG as spray cheese is from good provolone), but my point was that there wasn't any. You didn't have to worry about the mechanical considerations... you weren't shooting for a prestige class, or trying to make a certain build. The development had to be character-based, because the mechanical development was fixed. I view this as good, because it allowed you to concentrate on the character's personal development, rather than your feat array and PrC choice.


Deities and Demigods contains the Greek, Norse, and Egyptian pantheons. I own it for 3.0 (may be 3.5).

No. They contain lists of gods with the same name, but little relation to the real deities.

Rayek
2007-08-18, 11:30 PM
Also, remember when "Rules Lawyer" was about the biggest insult around the table? When someone disputed a ruling by the DM in the old days, and pulled out the book to look up the page the rule was detailed on, slowing down the game, it was met with harsh glares and a stern word by the DM, supported by everyone there. Now when a DM rules off the cuff it's treated like he's making a mistake, and that in not having encyclopedic knowledge of every rule, he's failing as a DM. Players who "help" their DM with reminders of RAW are the standard, rather than the one guy no one likes...

I feel your pain. Making an 'off the cuff' ruling in 3.5 is likely to incite a riot.

TomSki
2007-08-19, 12:18 AM
In Basic D&D, no one was a superhero. You had to play your character with an eye on his limitations as well as his strengths, you had to rely on teamwork and strategy. You had to be resourceful and clever and runnning away was sensible at times.

Xion_Anistu-san
2007-08-19, 01:56 AM
I miss assassins being a base class (i.e. AD&D 1st Ed.)
I miss the old multiclassing rules (I had a halfing Fighter/Thief that rocked)--where you got all the class abilities, but had to average hit points from each class and having to divide XP between the 2 (or 3) classes.
I miss Fighters and fighter-types being the only ones to get more than one attack per round.
I miss Fighters and fighter-types being the only ones to get more than +2 HP per level for a high Con.
I miss Magic-Users "extended" weapon list.
I miss the effectiveness and playability of Illusion spells and the Illussionist base class.
I miss how psionics were uber-powerful as well as a secondary ability that any class could have.
I miss the "respect" and prestige that came with playing a Bard--the Fighter/Thief/Bard(Druid) dual-class class (i.e. AD&D 1st Ed.)

Charity
2007-08-19, 09:48 AM
Charity, your thinkingof the AD&D Tables! I hated them as well. I'm talking about the Basic/Classic Dungeons & Dragons Attribute Tables, which were all pretty much consistant and are the model for Castles & Crusades. Check my original post to see the distribution.

damn my haste.

Yup you are quite right, I am being a div.
still

SoulCatcher78
2007-08-19, 05:57 PM
When Demons were from the Abyss and Devils were from the 9 Hells.
When the DM said Lich, PCs shook (at least until they were above 9th level).
Drow were freakin' scary (1st ed. G/D/Q series) to adventurers.
You were only really limited by your imagination...not many things to hold you back from developing the game you wanted.

Matthew
2007-08-19, 07:53 PM
damn my haste.

Yup you are quite right, I am being a div.
still

Heh, looks like we both are being a bit that way inclined. That should have read "you are thinking of", not "your thinkingof". Anyway, yeah, I don't miss the AD&D Attribute Tables and I wouldn't hesitate to port the Basic D&D Tables over.

SurlySeraph
2007-08-19, 08:12 PM
I never played 2E other than Baldur's Gate, but I really liked the different kits that classes could choose. They weren't all balanced, but they were a great way to make characters more unique and interesting.

Sebastian
2007-08-20, 02:35 AM
God damn do I miss infravision (anyone remember its bastard cousin ultravision? So useless...). I remember having an hour-long argument with my brother as to whether or not you could read a book with infravision. This was before we had really figured out that there was no "right" or "wrong" in D&D, only "what the DM sez".

Low-light vision? Darkvision? Pfah! Give me infravision any day.

OTOH, it's not really fair to say that 2e had balanced spellcasters. Clerics and (definitely) druids certainly weren't quite as powerful as their wizard counterparts, but full spellcasters were still thoroughly made of win, not even counteracted by the fact that they needed more XP to level. Baldur's Gate and other CRPG's didn't effectively model this because their spellcasting lacked the flexibility of PnP RPGs.

They were the most powerful classes even then, that is true, but it was balanced by the fact that a) even just 1hp of damage and they could not cast for that round, considered a nat 20 was an auto hit a group of kobolds with enough luck could even kill a 20th level wizard b) to recover spells they needed 10 minutes of study for spell level, 30 minutes for a fireball, 1 hour and half for a time stop, etc, this made them think twice before to cast a spell expecially an high level one, I seems to remember that a 20th level wizard that used all his spells needed more than 30 hours to recover them all, now a caster don't have a reason to not use all his spells every day and incidentally this make rope trick one of the more broke spell c) material components were not a mere formality. Of course in 3rd edition they removed all those limitations, give them more spell/for day and generally made them more powerful/less dangerous to use and I really can't understand how they didn't see that this would have made casters overpowered/broken.

Sebastian
2007-08-20, 03:25 AM
I actually like having the rules for magic item creation. The actual creation of these items, it seems to me, seems to run rampant. Um, first off, it's scads of gold and materials. It's more difficult than putting coins in a slot and getting a coke, though that seems to be the running attitude. It's easy to non-punitively control item creation in game by just having reasonable expectations of what can and cannot be done. I believe the phrase used in the text, specifically, is RAW MATERIALS.

F: Well, I wanna make a vorpal dancing sword!

W: Okay, that takes the wealth of a mid-sized nation.

F: Oh, I've got that right here! In... these three wagons.

W: Great... great. Okay, well, I'm going to need you to pick up this list of items, so that I can create that for you. That first one is probably the most readily attainable... I just don't usually have the need to keep red dragon blood "in stock" as they say.

F: Wait - I've got the gold! Here, take it, then make me a sword! Come on, magic something up, will you?

W: Look, the only sword I can make with just the gold would weigh 3 tons and even you couldn't lift it, not to mention that it couldn't support it's own weight. We all know that I can't turn stuff into gold. What makes you think I can turn gold into stuff, Fighty McGhee?

F: Uh, fine, one red dragon, coming up... extortionist...

W: Hey, be glad I'm willing to settle for middling reagants! The best vorpal swords come from tarrasque tongue!

Good idea, except that if you do that the fighter should get a 50% discount, after all half of that gold is supposed to be used to buy the raw materials, if he had to procure them he should not pay for them. (beside why should he get them personally? he could just go to a tavern and hire some lower level adventurer to fetch him some red dragon blood and all the other things.

Sebastian
2007-08-20, 03:30 AM
Ooooh... another thing I really miss! The old chain lightning was so much cooler. :smallbiggrin:

Generally speaking the old editions magic was cooler. 3rd edition magic is so ... prosaic, most spells are the same with the only difference than one deal fire damage and one cold damage, or some other variant, but that is true for everything, just look at the monster manuals for a good example, maybe it was just me but 2nd edition MM are fun to read, every monster entry give me some good idea for an encounter or even for an adventure, but 3rd edition MMs generally sucks, they are all combat stats, combat tactic and, maybe one or two paragraphs about monster ecology and/or society (and usually awfully done IMHO).

Tormsskull
2007-08-20, 06:44 AM
he could just go to a tavern and hire some lower level adventurer to fetch him some red dragon blood and all the other things.

Unless that low-level adventurer is stealing that red dragon blood when its donating it to the Red Cross, he's not likely to see the adventurer, or the money he payed him, again.


Old editions:
-I liked that not all classes leveled up at the same time. As soon as 3e went with everyone leveling at the same time, they implied that all of the classes were balanced against one another. This was a BIG mistake. Also, having to wait for 4+ people to level up at once puts a huge halt on the adventure.
-I liked that combat didn't rely on (or be built around) the use of a battle map. While the grid and the minis can be fun and all, it doesn't really facilitate a good roleplaying experience. And battles can take FOREVER.
-A lot more choices were left in the hands of the DM. This was great because it meant that players coming in to the game weren't expecting certain specific things.
-Kobolds being canines instead of reptiles.
-Cure Light Wounds removing paralysis.
-A lot of other things I'm too tired to think of.

Sebastian
2007-08-20, 06:58 AM
Unless that low-level adventurer is stealing that red dragon blood when its donating it to the Red Cross, he's not likely to see the adventurer, or the money he payed him, again.

Well, duh, when ever happened that adventurers are payed before doing a job? ;) (and he never said adult red dragon, did he, and hatchling or young should suffice.
Beside it is part of standard D&D economy, when high level characters have a work that they don't feel like do they go to a tavern and hire adventurers, I don't see why it should not apply even to PCs. :)


-Cure Light Wounds removing paralysis.


I don't remember that. It was a OD&D edition thing?

nagora
2007-08-20, 07:18 AM
Huh.. a thread about stuff people like in old editions? I expected Nagora to be here, posting the joys of older editions.


It is I, Nagora!

I was away for the weekend.

But there's not much for me to say: 1ed is so much better in every aspect of play than the later editions it's hard to pick a single part out, and that's despite thinking there's a lot that needed fixed.

The gems of 1st edition are probably:

Combat. Abstract enough to be managable, detailed enough to feel like you had control. Simply the best hand-to-hand combat system ever devised in any role-playing game. There's more detailed but less playable systems and there's more playable but less involving systems, but nothing has beaten AD&D's compromise. Unarmed combat, on the other hand, sucked, although Unearthed Arcana helped a bit.

Magic. Vancian magic is a great game-system and gives a distinct feel to D&D which points systems rarely have. The time taken to relearn spells is another great "atmosphere generator" as well as a brake on a caster's power, especially at high levels.

Clerical spells. The requirement for clerics to deal with/justify themselves to their deitys (or their agents) each and every time they regained their spells was another stroke of genius and a boon to roleplaying.

Classes instead of skills. Your character's mundane abilities are covered in a single number and classification: 3rd level Fighter. All right, perhaps race is needed too to complete the picture. With that out of the way you just get on with playing the person. No feats, skills, or other worthless fluff to drag interminable numbers into defining who you are. Pure and simple.

No background. Having nothing more specific than "fantasy mediaevalish Europish" as the assumption left the DM free to roam.

I could go on for pages, but whats the point? AD&D was taken off Gygax by various entirely legal means and handed to accountants and marketeers to find ways to milk it for money at any cost. The result was 3rd edition and now 4th. The design goals and ideals were long ago left in a bloody heap in some ditch and I expect 5th edition to be aimed at pre-schoolers.

nagora
2007-08-20, 07:23 AM
I miss the cheesy 1st Edition artwork.

So do I :smallredface:

I suppose it gave me the feeling that the game wasn't being handed down from on-high, but from people that were really quite like me and might actually be playing the game themselves.

hamlet
2007-08-20, 07:42 AM
Well, duh, when ever happened that adventurers are payed before doing a job? ;) (and he never said adult red dragon, did he, and hatchling or young should suffice.
Beside it is part of standard D&D economy, when high level characters have a work that they don't feel like do they go to a tavern and hire adventurers, I don't see why it should not apply even to PCs. :)


Except for the fact that, as stated in the monstrous manual, hatchling and young dragons are typically accompanied by mommy, daddy, brother, sister, and the rest of the family. A band of adventurers in that situation is known as "Barbeque."

Plus, if it ever got out that the PC was hiring hit men to go after dragons for spell components (and believe me, dragons being strong spell casters and extremely persuasive, it most certainly would) it's almost certain that a number of dragons of various colors (not just the red or even evil sort) would make it their business to hunt down and eat this impudent upstart of a mortal.

Plus there's also the fact that the DMG explicetely stated that magic items were not available for sale in the local Walmart, or even at big cities. Magic was rare and wondrous back then. Not just "yet another tool."

Sebastian
2007-08-20, 08:28 AM
Except for the fact that, as stated in the monstrous manual, hatchling and young dragons are typically accompanied by mommy, daddy, brother, sister, and the rest of the family. A band of adventurers in that situation is known as "Barbeque."


Fine, young-adult them.


Plus, if it ever got out that the PC was hiring hit men to go after dragons for spell components (and believe me, dragons being strong spell casters and extremely persuasive, it most certainly would) it's almost certain that a number of dragons of various colors (not just the red or even evil sort) would make it their business to hunt down and eat this impudent upstart of a mortal.
Right, because if he does it personally it would be so much better.


Plus there's also the fact that the DMG explicetely stated that magic items were not available for sale in the local Walmart, or even at big cities. Magic was rare and wondrous back then. Not just "yet another tool."

And who ever said differently, I'm just saying that if the PC are to put in the material components they should pay half price for a magic item, after all half of the market price is supposed to be used to buy those raw materials (or to hire someone to procure them).

Sundog
2007-08-20, 08:41 AM
I just loved the 2nd edition initiative system, where it took such things as the speed of the weapon/spell/ability into account, as well as the relevant stat and magical bonuses. Sure, it took a little bit to calculate your initiative, but it also encouraged the use of lighter weapons, and made light weapons go before the big, bulky ones.

MrNexx
2007-08-20, 10:06 AM
So do I :smallredface:

I suppose it gave me the feeling that the game wasn't being handed down from on-high, but from people that were really quite like me and might actually be playing the game themselves.

I don't miss 1st edition artwork. I have it with me, and use the books that contain it.

Ever run a group of 3.5'ers through The Temple of Elemental Evil, using 1st edition rules?

nagora
2007-08-20, 11:17 AM
I don't miss 1st edition artwork. I have it with me, and use the books that contain it.

Well, technically, I suppose I don't miss it for the same reason, but I do quite like it.


Ever run a group of 3.5'ers through The Temple of Elemental Evil, using 1st edition rules?

No, but I've run a group of 1ed through it using 1ed; what happens if you run 3.5ers through it?

Rayek
2007-08-20, 11:23 AM
It is I, Nagora!
The gems of 1st edition are probably:

Combat. Abstract enough to be managable, detailed enough to feel like you had control. Simply the best hand-to-hand combat system ever devised in any role-playing game. There's more detailed but less playable systems and there's more playable but less involving systems, but nothing has beaten AD&D's compromise. Unarmed combat, on the other hand, sucked, although Unearthed Arcana helped a bit.

Magic. Vancian magic is a great game-system and gives a distinct feel to D&D which points systems rarely have. The time taken to relearn spells is another great "atmosphere generator" as well as a brake on a caster's power, especially at high levels.

Clerical spells. The requirement for clerics to deal with/justify themselves to their deitys (or their agents) each and every time they regained their spells was another stroke of genius and a boon to roleplaying.

Classes instead of skills. Your character's mundane abilities are covered in a single number and classification: 3rd level Fighter. All right, perhaps race is needed too to complete the picture. With that out of the way you just get on with playing the person. No feats, skills, or other worthless fluff to drag interminable numbers into defining who you are. Pure and simple.


Sounds like I've found a kindred spirit on the boards. :smallsmile:

My group plays 3.5, and I'm usually fine with it. It's the current system and all of the players have a lot of time and money invested in it. But I do have my 1e moments, where I want to scream "why did they make 3.5 so damned complicated!?!" If I didn't have a spreadsheet program to maintain my characters on, my rapidly aging brain might implode. I'm planning a 1e retro-night soon. My fellow gamers are both curious and fearful.

I also miss something I think another poster touched upon. Discovering a magic item in the old rules was a big deal. In 3.5, the general expectation is that magic items are 'power ups' available at the corner store. Read the MIC, if you don't believe me.

Man this thread is great. Thank you kjones for giving all of us grognards a place to reminisce/rant. :smallbiggrin:

MrNexx
2007-08-20, 12:49 PM
No, but I've run a group of 1ed through it using 1ed; what happens if you run 3.5ers through it?

I imagine the same thing... though they start getting nervous when Lubash gets to go and, because of initiative, then gets to go again...

hamlet
2007-08-20, 02:17 PM
Fine, young-adult them.

Right, because if he does it personally it would be so much better.


And who ever said differently, I'm just saying that if the PC are to put in the material components they should pay half price for a magic item, after all half of the market price is supposed to be used to buy those raw materials (or to hire someone to procure them).

Wasn't criticizing you specifically, merely commenting on a pet peeve of mine when it comes to the new editions. I call it "golf bag D&D." where in this conversation can take place seriously:

Fighter: Well underling, I believe I'll have the DragonSlayer +7 GreatSword for this battle.

Underling: Beggin' yer pardon sir . . . but wouldn' the Vorpal Holy Avenger +6 be more appropriate? There's on'y the one dragon and it bein' a little one after all, I jus' though' that maybeh you'd want something more appropriate to kill the ettins with, sir.

Fighter: Well underling, I believe you're right! There'll be an extra spoonful of gruel in your rations this evening.

Or, in your suggestion, casually suggesting that, if he doesn't feel like it, a character could just wander out and hire a few folks to slay a dragon as if it were no more difficult than organizing a group of villagers to fend off a pack of wild dogs.

Indon
2007-08-20, 02:39 PM
No. They contain lists of gods with the same name, but little relation to the real deities.

Well, the egyptian deities use their greek names, and of course, they had to settle on only one version to put them into the book (So no Isis the Cow-Goddess, for instance), but each of them seemed pretty consistent with at least one version of them.

While I have less experience with the Greek and Norse mythologies, I didn't notice anything too big with them, either.

UserClone
2007-08-20, 04:12 PM
While I have less experience with the Greek and Norse mythologies, I didn't notice anything too big with them, either.

In my opinion, none(or at least few) of the Dieties in the Dieties & Demigods book had alignments appropriate to RL myth.

Indon
2007-08-20, 04:26 PM
In my opinion, none(or at least few) of the Dieties in the Dieties & Demigods book had alignments appropriate to RL myth.

Not many things converted from anything outside of the D&D alignment system fits neatly into the the D&D alignment system, methinks.

I'm pretty sure their alignments were reverse-engineered from their portofolios.

Harold
2007-08-20, 06:00 PM
one thing I liked from AD&D was they had a cavalier as a base class.

Sebastian
2007-08-20, 06:06 PM
Or, in your suggestion, casually suggesting that, if he doesn't feel like it, a character could just wander out and hire a few folks to slay a dragon as if it were no more difficult than organizing a group of villagers to fend off a pack of wild dogs.

As harder as it could be It would be always easier than go and kill the dragon yourself. :) or at least more time-saving.

Look it is only logical, the PCs are hired to do quests, right? Why should they be able to go and hire someone to do their "chores" sometime? Maybe not to a tavern, but if there are adventurers ther must be someplace where they find jobs. What I mean is, don't expect an high leve character to do every little thing by themselves.

Anyway, we are getting off topic here.

nagora
2007-08-20, 07:31 PM
As harder as it could be It would be always easier than go and kill the dragon yourself. :) or at least more time-saving.

Look it is only logical, the PCs are hired to do quests, right? Why should they be able to go and hire someone to do their "chores" sometime? Maybe not to a tavern, but if there are adventurers ther must be someplace where they find jobs. What I mean is, don't expect an high leve character to do every little thing by themselves.

And don't expect the hired adventurers to treat the PCs with any more respect than the PCs would a bunch of lazy, rich NPCs...


Anyway, we are getting off topic here.

That's okay with me - I'm Chaotic.

nagora
2007-08-21, 05:26 AM
I imagine the same thing... though they start getting nervous when Lubash gets to go and, because of initiative, then gets to go again...

I don't get it. I dug it out and Lubash is just an ogre; there's nothing special about his initiative in ToEE.

EntilZha
2007-08-21, 08:37 PM
From anything pre-3.0, nothing. Mages sucked, demihumans were limited in the classes they could take and the XP progression totally reeked of inequality.

Dausuul
2007-08-21, 09:12 PM
I don't get it. I dug it out and Lubash is just an ogre; there's nothing special about his initiative in ToEE.

But in pre-3.5 initiative, you roll every round, so it's quite possible for somebody to go twice in a row simply on the basis of rolling low on round 1 and high on round 2. To 3.5 eyes, that looks like an ogre who can cast celerity... :smallamused:

Sebastian
2007-08-22, 01:53 AM
But in pre-3.5 initiative, you roll every round, so it's quite possible for somebody to go twice in a row simply on the basis of rolling low on round 1 and high on round 2. To 3.5 eyes, that looks like an ogre who can cast celerity... :smallamused:

Actually I think they would be more surprised that they can't just roll to solve the puzzles. ;)

Matthew
2007-08-22, 02:08 AM
But in pre-3.5 initiative, you roll every round, so it's quite possible for somebody to go twice in a row simply on the basis of rolling low on round 1 and high on round 2. To 3.5 eyes, that looks like an ogre who can cast celerity... :smallamused:

Unlikely, as there are multiple Initiative Variants provided in the 3e DMG, amongst which is the one you're thinking of.

nagora
2007-08-22, 04:33 AM
But in pre-3.5 initiative, you roll every round, so it's quite possible for somebody to go twice in a row simply on the basis of rolling low on round 1 and high on round 2. To 3.5 eyes, that looks like an ogre who can cast celerity... :smallamused:

In 1e initiative, rolling high was good for initiative. PCs and monsters all had a chance to go first every round - especially ones with multiple attacks or high Dex. But there's nothing about rolling high and then rolling low to go first in two rounds.

Plus, of course, after you went first everyone else got to go before you go again no matter what your initiative roll (ignoring characters with multiple attacks, who might get two or more of their attacks in before someone else if they rolled well or there was a large weapon speed difference).

factotum
2007-08-22, 07:39 AM
My favourite was the process for becoming a Bard in 1st edition. Not that I ever wanted to actually be one--it was just the amazingly Byzantine complexity of the process that always tickled me!

A close second would be multi-classing in general. I could never work out how somebody could get to, say, level 8 as a Thief, then, if they switched to being a fighter, they would suddenly lose their ability to use any of their thiefly skills--at least until they reached level 9 (or was it 8?) as a Fighter, at which point they were suddenly able to remember and use all those skills they hadn't touched in months. This is roughly equivalent to spending all your life as a professional diver, then losing the ability to use diving equipment (even casually) because you decide to switch to being a second-hand car salesman...

nagora
2007-08-22, 07:53 AM
My favourite was the process for becoming a Bard in 1st edition. Not that I ever wanted to actually be one--it was just the amazingly Byzantine complexity of the process that always tickled me!

I havbe no idea what EGG was smoking that day either!


A close second would be multi-classing in general. I could never work out how somebody could get to, say, level 8 as a Thief, then, if they switched to being a fighter, they would suddenly lose their ability to use any of their thiefly skills--at least until they reached level 9 (or was it 8?) as a Fighter, at which point they were suddenly able to remember and use all those skills they hadn't touched in months.

This was dual-classing, not multi-classing - the difference was a game-balance thing for humans Vs demi-humans.

In fact you retained all the abilities (including HD) from the original class, but if you used them while supposedly training to become good with the new class you forfitted experience.

The rule was clumsy but did get across the idea of it being harder and harder to change your spots the older you get. Plus in 1e humans had a huge advantage over demi-humans in that they had no level limits; making it easy for them to multi class would have robbed the demi-humans of their appeal completely.


This is roughly equivalent to spending all your life as a professional diver, then losing the ability to use diving equipment (even casually) because you decide to switch to being a second-hand car salesman...

It's more like a professional diver changing to a car salesman and not progressing in the latter occupation because he keeps skipping work to go diving. S/he needs to concentrate on the new skills to improve in them.

Wraith
2007-08-22, 06:06 PM
I will probably be getting several strange looks for admitting this, but the things that I really, really miss about the older versions of D&D are the completely useless bits that have been removed as unnecessary 'fluff'.

The best example I could possibly give is that of the Cleric/Druidic 'Reincarnation' spell. Nowadays, if you wake up one morning and find yourself on the wrong end of an Ogre's club, you sigh wearily, roll on the table and get given a PC class like Human, Elf, Dwarf or something slightly more exotic like Troglodyte or Lizardfolk. In any event, you pick up your gear and get going again - potentially better than ever, thanks to your new Bugbear +4 Strength and +2 Dexterity/Constitution modifiers.

Not so, in the old days.

It was a genuine decision as to whether you should let yourself be reincarnated, or just to save yourself the trouble and remain cadaverous....

Player 1: "D'oh, I'm dead! Luckily the party Cleric can REINCARNATE me! Yay! Roll, roll, roll the dice to gen-er-ate my new ra-ace.... What does '02' get me, Oh Benevolent DM?"
GM: "You Reincarnate as a level 1 Badger. Have Fun."
Player 1: " :smalleek: "

That, and the blatant racism against Dwarves, whom it was physically impossible to reincarnate as because they were the only generic race that DIDN'T appear on the chart!

Yes it was completely cruel, and yes it was usually just better to roll a new character and hope your old friends are feeling generous when it comes to sharing out the Old One's looted equipment, but I don't care.
Things like this remind me that you could base a character on ANY concept and get away with it, even if it didn't actually have all that much going for it in combat or negotiating.

There's far too many useful spells and abilities in 3.5. Whatever happened to fun, ridiculous things like Leomund's Trap that usually did nothing but upset people, or provide a laugh for the rest of the party when it kicked in? :smallbiggrin:

Starsinger
2007-08-22, 10:52 PM
It's more like a professional diver changing to a car salesman and not progressing in the latter occupation because he keeps skipping work to go diving. S/he needs to concentrate on the new skills to improve in them.

What? So let's say I'm a lawyer, and I decide to become a sushi chef instead, does this mean I lose my ability to know the law, because I have to concentrate on sashimi recipes? If I hear a lawyer talk about the law, do I just misconprehend him because I'm not good enough at making sushi and wasabi sauce to remember the law?

bugsysservant
2007-08-22, 11:05 PM
What? So let's say I'm a lawyer, and I decide to become a sushi chef instead, does this mean I lose my ability to know the law, because I have to concentrate on sashimi recipes? If I hear a lawyer talk about the law, do I just misconprehend him because I'm not good enough at making sushi and wasabi sauce to remember the law?

I think you misunderstand. The xp system is designed under the inherent premise that you advance toward your next level by studying the necesary skills. 3.x did away with this mostly, leading to "of course I am a wizard now, I retroactively studied under the party wizard last level!" If I am training to become a fighter, and at every possible fighter opportunity I instead sneak attack my opponents, there has been no point where I could actually learn fighter techniques, and thus have done nothing to warant gaining the bab and fighter feat.

Your analogy doesn't work as well in terms of d&d, but there can still be the same premise. If I want to become a chef, and open up a restaurant, but instead of serving quality food and learning to cook, I instead sue anyone who complains, I have done nothing to gain a level in chef, since I relied on old skill from a different class.

horseboy
2007-08-23, 12:38 AM
"Well, it either allows the possessor to cast the various Bigby hand spells, or it's a +2 back scratcher."

The concept that adventurers were rare. You know, that even in a capital city, you might only have 2 or 3 groups there. Nowadays every inn in every hamlet is full of them. :smallmad:

Sebastian
2007-08-23, 02:16 AM
What? So let's say I'm a lawyer, and I decide to become a sushi chef instead, does this mean I lose my ability to know the law, because I have to concentrate on sashimi recipes? If I hear a lawyer talk about the law, do I just misconprehend him because I'm not good enough at making sushi and wasabi sauce to remember the law?

No, It means that if you practice law rather than cook sashimi you will not grow in level as a sushi chef. To learn you new profession you must focus in it but if a wizard dual class as a fighter but he keep solve all his problems as a wizard rather than as a fighter he will never learn to fight well (i.e if he defeat monsters with spells rather than with his sword he will not gain xp from it.). Remember that D&D was based on a pseudo-medieval assumption, that a class was your profession and that it was for life, only exceptional individual could try to change profession and it wasn't easy. The concept to "become what you want to be" is a relatevely modern one.

Starsinger
2007-08-23, 02:46 AM
No, It means that if you practice law rather than cook sashimi you will not grow in level as a sushi chef. To learn you new profession you must focus in it but if a wizard dual class as a fighter but he keep solve all his problems as a wizard rather than as a fighter he will never learn to fight well (i.e if he defeat monsters with spells rather than with his sword he will not gain xp from it.). Remember that D&D was based on a pseudo-medieval assumption, that a class was your profession and that it was for life, only exceptional individual could try to change profession and it wasn't easy. The concept to "become what you want to be" is a relatevely modern one.

Lemme try this again, from the other way around, sushi chef to lawyer. if Im the best sushi chef in the world, even for fun, I can't make sashimi until I'm the best lawyer in the world? (when my lawyer level equals my chef level)

horseboy
2007-08-23, 02:58 AM
Lemme try this again, from the other way around, sushi chef to lawyer. if Im the best sushi chef in the world, even for fun, I can't make sashimi until I'm the best lawyer in the world? (when my lawyer level equals my chef level)

In a nut shell. Never did like dual classing.

nagora
2007-08-23, 05:04 AM
Lemme try this again, from the other way around, sushi chef to lawyer. if Im the best sushi chef in the world, even for fun, I can't make sashimi until I'm the best lawyer in the world? (when my lawyer level equals my chef level)

No. You can make as much sushi as you like - and be brilliant at it - but you won't get experience for it. You did not lose any abilities under dual-classing, you just got penalised for using them before you had mastered the new class. In real life(tm), it does get harder to change professions as you get older. The dual classing reflected that in a crude way. Plus, race balance was a big issue.

As someone else pointed out, the 3e idea that taking a new class is something you can do in a week isn't really very realistic either, especially for magic users.

In 1e the races who could multi-class were the ones regarded as having a natural talent. So only Elves and half-Elves could be Fighter/Magic-Users for example. This was balanced by their level limits, which also balanced out their long lives. If Elves live for centuries why aren't most of them 120th level?

MrNexx
2007-08-23, 10:01 AM
I got a new copy of the 1st edition Player's Handbook (old cover, with the red statue) and the 1st edition Monster Manual 1 (old cover, with the menagerie) yesterday. $5.98 a piece, binding and interior in great shape, and covers only slightly scuffed.

Gods, I love those old books. I already had a copy of each (though my PH was the newer cover), but more makes it easier to run a game. I want to find another DMG, though a third or fourth PH would also be great.

hamlet
2007-08-23, 10:48 AM
I got a new copy of the 1st edition Player's Handbook (old cover, with the red statue) and the 1st edition Monster Manual 1 (old cover, with the menagerie) yesterday. $5.98 a piece, binding and interior in great shape, and covers only slightly scuffed.

Gods, I love those old books. I already had a copy of each (though my PH was the newer cover), but more makes it easier to run a game. I want to find another DMG, though a third or fourth PH would also be great.

I believe I have about 6-8 of each. Want some of mine?

MrNexx
2007-08-23, 10:55 AM
I believe I have about 6-8 of each. Want some of mine?

If you're offering them for the cost of postage, hell yes!

Otherwise, I'm a bit short of cash...

nagora
2007-08-23, 10:59 AM
In a nut shell. Never did like dual classing.

It may have fitted into a nut-shell, but it was still wrong.

Matthew
2007-08-24, 03:13 PM
I never thought I would, but I actually do miss the Two Weapon Fighting Rules from 2e. The 3e ones are totally rubbish. I also miss the ability to Actively Parry incoming Attacks.

nagora
2007-08-24, 03:16 PM
I never thought I would, but I actually do miss the Two Weapon Fighting Rules from 2e. The 3e ones are totally rubbish. I also miss the ability to Actively Parry incoming Attacks.

What were the 2ed rules. The 1ed rules were, shall we say, brief?

Matthew
2007-08-24, 03:19 PM
Main difference between 1e and 2e was that you only ever got 1 extra attack via Two Weapon Fighting. These rules were expanded in the Complete Fighter's Handbook alowing you to do various Manoeuvres and expend Weapon Proficiencies to get better at Two Weapon Fighting.

ken-do-nim
2007-08-24, 03:32 PM
I never thought I would, but I actually do miss the Two Weapon Fighting Rules from 2e. The 3e ones are totally rubbish. I also miss the ability to Actively Parry incoming Attacks.

Actually I never saw 'active parry' rules that worked. When my players blocked a dinosaur's bite with a dagger I said enough with that. I do think those rules can be fixed though to account for size.

But heh, nice to talk with you on multiple boards today.

Personally, right now I just miss *gaming*. But I've got a 3.5 as well as a Classic game this weekend after a summer of almost none, so I'll have my fix...

Crow
2007-08-24, 03:32 PM
Real-Life Dual-Classing:

There was time that I was a really good shot with rifles and pistols of all types. This was because I went shooting, a lot. During this time, it was my job to be a good marksman, so I practiced a lot.

Then I decided that I didn't want shooting to be my job anymore. I decided that I wanted to train people to get fit and eat properly.

I had to neglect my shooting while I trained to be a good food and exercise guy, especially during the beginning. Anytime that I went out to go shooting, I was using time that i should have been using to become a better food and exercise guy. Since shooting is a perishable skill, you need to keep doing it in order to stay in top form.

As I got much better at the food and exercise thing, there was less for me to learn all at once. I only had to learn small bits as they became available, as opposed to the deluge of bits when I first started.

Consequently, I had more time left over for shooting. So now that I have everything "squared away", I have more time to shoot, and am just as good a shot as I was before (well maybe not quite as good, but close), but also good at what I do now. Shooting is not my job anymore, so I probably won't get all that much better. This is because it isn't my job anymore. My "work time" is spent learning and practicing a different skill now.



That is how I look at it.

Matthew
2007-08-24, 03:41 PM
Actually I never saw 'active parry' rules that worked. When my players blocked a dinosaur's bite with a dagger I said enough with that. I do think those rules can be fixed though to account for size.

Heh, heh. Like anything in RPGs, there has to be a certain amount of DM judgement call involved, especially with something like that.


But heh, nice to talk with you on multiple boards today.

Indeed.

MrNexx
2007-08-24, 09:38 PM
Actually I never saw 'active parry' rules that worked. When my players blocked a dinosaur's bite with a dagger I said enough with that. I do think those rules can be fixed though to account for size.

To quote HoL: "A tin spoon does not a parry make."

horseboy
2007-08-25, 09:17 PM
Did the kooshi make it into 3.x? Never really read the splat books, so I'd figure it was in the elf book, but nobody talks about them.

bosssmiley
2007-08-26, 08:23 AM
Did the kooshi make it into 3.x? Never really read the splat books, so I'd figure it was in the elf book, but nobody talks about them.

Those big stupid green elven mastiffs? They were in the monsters chapter of "Races of the Wild". Waste of a page IMO.

Matthew
2007-08-26, 05:59 PM
Those big stupid green elven mastiffs? They were in the monsters chapter of "Races of the Wild". Waste of a page IMO.

*Laughs* I felt that way about their inclusion in the Complete Book of Elves, but I didn't like to say. That said, there was a lot of drek in both those books...