An Old Timer's View of 4E & 3.5E

[TheMeanDM]

Someone somewhere asked the question "Who else won't bother with 4e". Well, rather than hijack their thread with my response and start it down some other road, I decided to post my response/thoughts to that kind of question here.

For me, the problem with all of this "stuff" is that...well..."Dungeons and Dragons" is no longer Dungeons and Dragons.

My first set of DnD was the Red Box Basic Set.

http://www.geocities.com/jason_miltenberger/basicset.jpg


Shortly thereafter, my gaming group and I bought a good amount of stuff for Advanced D&D (some call it 1st Edition). This was stuff like the PHB, DMG, and Oriental Adventures, etc.
http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/images/phb_v1_10th_s.jpg http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/c/cc/250px-Oriental_Adventures_1st_Edition.jpeg


Then, within the next year or so, all the shiny new 2nd Ed stuff came out (this PHB look familiar?).

http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/dnd/img/phb_2ed_1s.jpg


We snatched up as much as we could. Forgotten Realms boxed sets, PHB's, DMG's, MM's, modules....gods we spent a ton on books!

What we really liked about it, and what kept us buying it, was that the system maintained the *core* of AD&D.

It kept the THAC0, AC, Stats, Saving Throws, etc. Yes, it added more things like non weapon proficiencies, expanded weapon specialization and familiarity rules, etc...but it wasn't a massive overhaul.

It was like someone took my favorite car, modified the body to make it look cooler, repainted it, gave it big fat tires....but the engine under the hood remained the same. We played that edition for over a decade.

When 3rd Edition came out in 2000 (after WOTC had bought TSR's soul in 98) everything changed.

Gone were the days of THAC0. Gone were the myriad number of saving throws. No more proficiencies. The entire "engine" of D&D had been changed.

Very few things survived this overhaul. These included spell names (and functions), classes, races (excluding half-orcs), and the six stats: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Dump St..err..Charisma. But perhaps the most important thing of all remained: the name "Dungeons and Dragons".

Some people called it "DnD for Dummies" because everything was so much more simplistic and streamlined--whether for good or for bad. Part of this approach by WOTC was aimed at growing their business and making more $$. In order to do that, they knew they would need to reach a broader age range. Some people thrive on complicated, detailed, "crunch" game systems. This is what 2nd Ed developed into (especially with the inclusion of the Options books). But in order to reach the masses of people they were hoping to reach, they needed a fast, easy to learn, easy to play, and yet fun system. So that's what they developed with 3E.

My personal view is that WOTC basically hit the RESET button with 3rd Ed so that all of their customers (present and future) would be on the same playing field and have access to all the same material.

What's crazy, though, is that it was only 2-3 years later that they came out with 3.5 to balance out the things that were wrong with 3E.

And here we are, just 4 years removed from 3.5 (7 overall since the "death" of 2nd Ed) and WOTC is already releasing a completely new system. There will be competely new mechanics (again), more (and different) races, more (and different) classes.

I, for one, kept a somewhat open mind when 3E was released. I got the core books, played and ran a few games, and learned that it wasn't so bad. As more and more stuff was released, and as I adjusted my thinking (higher #'s are better!), I learned to like the streamlined stystem.

But one thing that I never adjusted to was seeing "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover of the books.

For me, it wasn't true Dungeons and Dragons. It was a completely new system, so it wasn't D&D to me.

I understand WOTC's incorporation of the D&D name. It's iconic. It's historical. It's...epic...I suppose, you could say. They would have been utterly stupid *not* to use it. It's a household name (good and bad).

My heart will always be tied to 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D. Those, for me, represent what *real* Dungeons and Dragons is. For 20 years the system remained the same at it's core. You could add and subtract as you saw fit, but it's essence...nay...it's soul remained unchanged.

I will probably buy the new system, at some point.

But I will not be playing Dungeons and Dragons.

It will be playing 4E

[Matthew]

Hey, Picture Thief, get with the program! Troll and Toad are onto you! :smallbiggrin:

Try using the Acaeum (http://www.acaeum.com/) or TSR Archive (http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/index.htm)

[Mr. Friendly]

My first set of DnD was the Red Box Basic Set.

Mine too. I distintly remember it being called "Dungeons and Dragons".


Shortly thereafter, my gaming group and I bought a good amount of stuff for Advanced D&D (some call it 1st Edition). This was stuff like the PHB, DMG, and Oriental Adventures, etc.

The same. You might say though that AD&D was the upstart who changed the name of D&D though....


Then, within the next year or so, all the shiny new 2nd Ed stuff came out (this PHB look familiar?).

We snatched up as much as we could. Forgotten Realms boxed sets, PHB's, DMG's, MM's, modules....gods we spent a ton on books!

What we really liked about it, and what kept us buying it, was that the system maintained the *core* of AD&D.

It kept the THAC0, AC, Stats, Saving Throws, etc. Yes, it added more things like non weapon proficiencies, expanded weapon specialization and familiarity rules, etc...but it wasn't a massive overhaul.

It was like someone took my favorite car, modified the body to make it look cooler, repainted it, gave it big fat tires....but the engine under the hood remained the same. We played that edition for over a decade.

When 3rd Edition came out in 2000 (after WOTC had bought TSR's soul in 98) everything changed.

Gone were the days of THAC0. Gone were the myriad number of saving throws. No more proficiencies. The entire "engine" of D&D had been changed.

You really think things changed that much? I disagree. Granted Saving throws changed significantly, but for the better in my opinion. Thac0? It's essentially still in there. However instead of deling with convoluted numbers like like Thac0 6 vs. AC -9 you just say I have my BAB of +14 vs. AC 29. The math is the main thing that is simpler. It's all positive numbers, added to a die roll, against a target number. While it may not be a problem for you or your group, I've had more than my share of players who couldn't add their way out of a wet paper bag. Reduced math = faster gameplay.


Very few things survived this overhaul. These included spell names (and functions), classes, races (excluding half-orcs), and the six stats: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Dump St..err..Charisma. But perhaps the most important thing of all remained: the name "Dungeons and Dragons".

Having all stats be important and having all races be, generally, equal seems like a good thing to me. It seems pretty unfair that in a game designed to be fun, a player should be punished for playing a certain race. Which all the races were in 1e/2e.


Some people called it "DnD for Dummies" because everything was so much more simplistic and streamlined--whether for good or for bad. Part of this approach by WOTC was aimed at growing their business and making more $$. In order to do that, they knew they would need to reach a broader age range. Some people thrive on complicated, detailed, "crunch" game systems. This is what 2nd Ed developed into (especially with the inclusion of the Options books). But in order to reach the masses of people they were hoping to reach, they needed a fast, easy to learn, easy to play, and yet fun system. So that's what they developed with 3E.

For me the really impressive thing about 3e vs 2e was the streamlining of combat. We had battles done in a few minutes that would have taken several hours in 3e. 2e was so clunky by the end that you needed 4 books open at any given moment. The same thing has happened to 3e. Too many options, too many books. 4e will do the same thing I am sure, over time.


My personal view is that WOTC basically hit the RESET button with 3rd Ed so that all of their customers (present and future) would be on the same playing field and have access to all the same material.

Pretty much.


What's crazy, though, is that it was only 2-3 years later that they came out with 3.5 to balance out the things that were wrong with 3E.

And here we are, just 4 years removed from 3.5 (7 overall since the "death" of 2nd Ed) and WOTC is already releasing a completely new system. There will be competely new mechanics (again), more (and different) races, more (and different) classes.

Consider this, it was just 3 years between the original D&D and AD&D. It was 10 years until 2e came out. (Though only 4 since Unearthed Arcana)
6 years later the Players Options came along. So really, in this case it is less about a whole new system than about the evolution of the game.


I, for one, kept a somewhat open mind when 3E was released. I got the core books, played and ran a few games, and learned that it wasn't so bad. As more and more stuff was released, and as I adjusted my thinking (higher #'s are better!), I learned to like the streamlined stystem.

But one thing that I never adjusted to was seeing "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover of the books.

For me, it wasn't true Dungeons and Dragons. It was a completely new system, so it wasn't D&D to me.

I disagree. It was/is D&D. What it wasn't was AD&D.


I understand WOTC's incorporation of the D&D name. It's iconic. It's historical. It's...epic...I suppose, you could say. They would have been utterly stupid *not* to use it. It's a household name (good and bad).

My heart will always be tied to 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D. Those, for me, represent what *real* Dungeons and Dragons is. For 20 years the system remained the same at it's core. You could add and subtract as you saw fit, but it's essence...nay...it's soul remained unchanged.

I will probably buy the new system, at some point.

But I will not be playing Dungeons and Dragons.

It will be playing 4E

I understand where you are coming from and you are right, it isn't Gary Gygax's D&D anymore. The D&D where you made a human so you can Dual-Class an infinite number of times and get level 20 in all classes, as opposed to your friend who thought it would be fun to be an elf, only to find out his level capped at 10. It's not the D&D where the entire party was wiped out because the party wizard didn't mem a specific spell that would have saved the party from a completely arbitrary and unique encounter that noone had any way to prepare for.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Sure 3rd edition threw out the saving throws and THAC0, but in the end you were still rolling saving throws and still rolling against armour class. I won't miss suddenly changing to percentage rolls when I want to do something different either.

Then again, the only thing I really prefer about 3rd edition is how much more structured it is if you want to homebrew monster stats.

[Matthew]

I feel for you. I don't get the same feeling for 3e that I do when I look at a 1e or 2e AD&D product, let alone a BD&D product. 3e is okay, but it's not that good either. In the end it comes down to a highly structured system versus a very open system. More people prefer the structured system to the open one and that's okay. I don't play much 3e, I doubt I will play much 4e, but I don't worry about it either. One of the great things D20 and the OGL has given the world is the tools to recreate those long gone days in the form of Castles & Crusades, OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord. Sure, it's not exactly the same, but it's close enough, far closer than 3e is and 4e looks liek it will be.

[Ralfarius]

I would tend to disagree with the sentiment that 3E and on isn't D&D anymore. Mr. Friendly really covered it, but the fact is you're still rolling a D20 and comparing your stat against your opponent's stat. In fact, I'd say that any D20 system game is actually D&D, just re-flavoured into Star Wars, or a Modern game, or what have you.

When we get to the point where the D20 is thrown away, and you're rolling fistfuls of D6's for checks, or a number of D10's, or 3d6 and comparing your roll against your stat (instead of your bonus versus your opponent's stats)... Then I won't feel like I'm playing D&D anymore.

The elements that they kept in 3rd edition, and are keeping in 4th are more what make D&D, well, D&D. I think, so long as I'm still rolling twenty-sided dice and looking at a block of 6 stats, and I'm a dwarf, then I'm playing D&D.

[TheMeanDM]

Dual/Multi Classing as well as level restrictions could be (and I'm sure quite often were) thrown out the window by the DM.

And don't get me wrong...3/3.5E combat does indeed progress much faster...because the math is easier. No doubts about that.

But it is undeniably different, mechanics wise, than 1/2E or even basic D&D. There is no THAC0. Like you say, in a nutshell, it comes down to "add your roll and your bonus together, and see if your total is high enough of a number to hit". Pretty simple, and fast.

3.5 is fun, don't misunderstand me.
4E may be fun as well (nearly all gaming really comes down to the players and DM...the system is secondary).

But for me, it won't be D&D, or AD&D, whatever your cup of tea is for calling it :)

[Matthew]

3e combat runs faster? Maybe faster than the Player's Option series, but not faster than the basic version, surely?

[Beleriphon]

3e combat runs faster? Maybe faster than the Player's Option series, but not faster than the basic version, surely?

No, it really does if you're using just the core material. You roll, add a number and compare. While AD&D and older versions in theory work the same way they are more needlessly complicated (seriously THAC0? Who thought that would be an efficient adjudication method) from the rolling perspective. Where 3E seems to take longer is the number of specially called out rules options, which doesn't really take that much longer if everybody understands the basic combat rules and options, which really aren't that hard to follow.

[hamlet]

You know, had a whole huge post here, delineating all the things I wanted to say, but thought better of it.

Suffice to say this: the current incarnation of D&D has moved so far from what it was originally that it is the same game in only two ways. 1) The names. 2) That there are still elves, dwarves, humans, etc in it who go on adventures (but then again, the same can be said of Palladium, Arduin, Rollmaster, etc. and nobody would call them the same game as D&D).

It's a lot like slapping a corvette sticker on the side of motorcycle and calling it the same thing because they both still go fast and have the same name.

[AKA_Bait]

3e combat runs faster? Maybe faster than the Player's Option series, but not faster than the basic version, surely?

From my limited experience with the older systems I would say, all things being equal (player readiness/distractions etc.) 3e does run a teeny tiny bit faster. Not a whole lot. The math is simpler though.

[Matthew]

That's the first time I have ever heard anyone seriously voice that opinion. I can't say I agree with it and I'm fairly familiar with 3e. THAC0 does not take longer to work out than the 'special rules' of 3e. The key is always familiarity. If you're not familiar with the rules of a given system, you can expect it to take longer. However, 3e takes more time because there are more things to consider (and likely more attacks being rolled).

[AKA_Bait]

That's the first time I have ever heard anyone seriously voice that opinion. I can't say I agree with it and I'm fairly familiar with 3e. THAC0 does not take longer to work out than the 'special rules' of 3e. The key is always familiarity. If you're not familiar with the rules of a given system, you can expect it to take longer. However, 3e takes more time because there are more things to consider (and likely more attacks being rolled).

Honestly, I think it's simpler even than that. It depends upon who the DM and group are. My 2e DMs were uniformly awful and the other players tended to suck too consequentially the combat moved very slowly. My 3e groups have almost all been pretty good (with one or two players who were, and still are, exceptions) and combat moves pretty quick. I have strong suspicion your 2e group was pretty good hence the difference of opinion.

[Balkash]

When I first ordered my first D&D book, it was an old AD&D DMG off of ebay. I had no idea that there were other editions (this was back around 2003). Hell, when I first started playing D&D, it was actually absolutely nothing anywhere near any edition of D&D. My friend said it was D&D, we basically took his plastic swords and had sword fights to determine everything, whether I picked a lock, or whether I hit the Kobold with the spell. I look back upon that, and though it wasn't like the rulebook D&D, it was still D&D to me. I think, and its not fact its an opinion, that D&D is not about the mechanics, or the THAC0, or the AC, or the saving throws, but D&D is about a group of people getting together, and going on an adventure and having a good time. I had as much fun swinging a plastic sword, as I do now rolling my d20 to see if I can make that epic spell work. I'm just thinking that D&D, no matter how its played, is D&D, so long as it is fun. If D&D becomes too much numbers and math and structure, that, is when it will no longer be D&D to me.

[Matthew]

Honestly, I think it's simpler even than that. It depends upon who the DM and group are. My 2e DMs were uniformly awful and the other players tended to suck too consequentially the combat moved very slowly. My 3e groups have almost all been pretty good (with one or two players who were, and still are, exceptions) and combat moves pretty quick. I have strong suspicion your 2e group was pretty good hence the difference of opinion.

You're probably right about the first part, but with regard to my last group, they for the most part only had the most rudimentry grasp of the rules; they declared their actions, I adjudicated them (they got better as time went on).

[AKA_Bait]

You're probably right about the first part, but with regard to my last group, they for the most part only had the most rudimentry grasp of the rules; they declared their actions, I adjudicated them (they got better as time went on).

Sounds exactly like my 3e group at the beginning through now (some improvment). Also sounds like my 2e group, except there the DM was lousy at adjudicating anyones action and it would frequently devolve into bickering, which takes time and is less fun.

[Matthew]

Heh, heh. Ah well, I still think there are more steps in 3e and more specific things to learn, but I can imagine it, with a sufficiently experienced group, not being very much slower than 2e with a sufficiently experienced DM (no idea what the relative learning curves are, though).

[AKA_Bait]

From my own exp, 3e was much faster than 2e. 2e only managed to come close to keeping pace on the basis of attrition (almost anyone who played with us didn't return after 2 or 3 sessions.) I made it only around a dozen sessions myself.

[Matthew]

Hmmn. Well, we usually played from anywhere from about five to eight hours, though actual gaming was probably more like five or six. Let's say six for the sake of argument.

It took two sessions (to the best of my recollection!) of 2e to play the first adventure, which involved several wilderness encounters and a dungeon with about thirty Kobolds in it, a couple of Wolves and a Kobold Shaman. The party consisted of four Player Characters, one Non Player Character Adventurer and four Men at Arms. (This first group was almost entirely new to 2e AD&D).

With a different group, it took us about six hours to play through the first part of the Burning Plague, starting from the entrance and progressing to the large cavern, with three Player Characters; they faced one 1 Kobold Shaman, one Dire Weasel, seventeen Kobolds and eight Rats (This second group was entirely new to 3e).

That's the best comparison I could come up with! It might speak more to my familiarity with 2e, but I have to say that in neither case did we have to stop to look anything up.

[Thrawn183]

I've found that player unfamiliarity is the big speed killer. That and indecision.

Too many players are unfamiliar with their character's abilities and don't have a solid enough grasp on tactics to quickly decide which of them to use. To heal an injured comrade or to finish off the enemy? This should be a fairly easy choice. Deciding which spell to use? Should be done before your turn is up. Rolling multiple attacks? Use multiple color coded die.

I've had combat encounters that took groups with IDENTICAL PC's that took 30 - 45 minutes with one and about 5 with the other. The mechanics may change, but they player element, sadly, will never change.

[Tarinth]

We still send PC's into dungeons. We still fight dragons. Therefore, it's still Dungeons and Dragons. I loved 2nd edition and still have two shelves of old books and a 2nd edition campaigne, but all things change my friend. Nuff said (well, mabye not)

[hamlet]

We still send PC's into dungeons. We still fight dragons. Therefore, it's still Dungeons and Dragons. I loved 2nd edition and still have two shelves of old books and a 2nd edition campaigne, but all things change my friend. Nuff said (well, mabye not)

By that logic, Rollmaster is exactly the same as D&D.

[Zincorium]

Dual/Multi Classing as well as level restrictions could be (and I'm sure quite often were) thrown out the window by the DM.

Which is why a lot of gamers have either horrible experiences or awesome experiences with 2nd edition, and very rarely any that were in-between.

With 2nd edition, a game with a mediocre DM sucked almost as bad as with a terrible DM, because it flat out required the DM to come up with myriad different things. Like...making magical items. Seriously, that was a hand-wave and a half on TSR's part.

With 3.x, WotC realized that not everyone had a really good DM, they had to make do with whomever was available, and they changed the rules so that even if your DM couldn't make up original stuff to save his life, there was a backup table to be used.


I had a blast with my 2nd edition group, BUT it was so heavily houseruled we might as well have left the books in their box. Saves were a pain, ALWAYS, and Thac0 only engendered arguments as to how it was pronounced. I'm more comfortable with 3rd ed.

[brian c]

and Thac0 only engendered arguments as to how it was pronounced. I'm more comfortable with 3rd ed.

Speaking of which, I never played pre-3e, so.. "thack-oh" or "thake-oh" ?Or something else entirely? Thack-zero?

[Cuddly]

Speaking of which, I never played pre-3e, so.. "thack-oh" or "thake-oh" ?Or something else entirely? Thack-zero?

Ooh, good question.

[CASTLEMIKE]

THACO: To Hit Armor Class Zero

[Cuddly]

THACO: To Hit Armor Class Zero

The question is how to pronounce the acronym.

[Skjaldbakka]

That's the first time I have ever heard anyone seriously voice that opinion. I can't say I agree with it and I'm fairly familiar with 3e. THAC0 does not take longer to work out than the 'special rules' of 3e. The key is always familiarity. If you're not familiar with the rules of a given system, you can expect it to take longer. However, 3e takes more time because there are more things to consider (and likely more attacks being rolled).

In a way, I don't understand how the old D&D editions are complicated. I was able to figure them out in 1st grade, for crying out loud. Are modern gamers that stupid, or I am just that much smarter than the average bear?
:smalltongue:

I do remember being very annoyed that my elf couldn't be a paladin . . .

[TheOOB]

I acually started playing with Basic D&D (the blue box), moved to 2nd Ed, then moved to 1st Ed when I moved (thats what the players in my area played), then moved to 3.0 and 3.5 when they came out.

Overall, I've been happy with the changed made in 3.0 and 3.5, yes they simplified things, but D&D isn't meant to be some quagmire of complex rules, it's meant to be a vessel for role playing. The game is still dungeons and dragons, you still assemble a diverse party of warriors, priests, thieves, and magic users to delve into the depths of the earth and fight powerful monsters. It still has a class and level based system, it still uses an in depth tactical combat system reminiscent of a video game RPG(or rather RPGs use a system that is similar to D&D). For all thats changed, the game has remained fundamentally the same. Base Attack Bonus, for example, is no different then THAC0, it is just a little more intuitive and easier to calculate, which does make a difference when you are trying to get new players to play(new players don't usually like being confused).

When saying you don't like a new edition, ask yourself, am I just saying this because I have a lot of loyalty to an old edition, or is there acually some changes that make me not like this game. If you choose the first one, you should give the new edition a chance, instead of thinking of it as changing your old game, think of it as a new game with new ideas. If you choose the second one then by all means play the older games, we won't think any less of you for it.

I for one look forward to 4e, WotC did a pretty good job on 3e all things considered. While I'm not a fan of their marketing strategy, I think they overall improved the game.

[Counterspin]

The system is immaterial to me. I started seriously playing in 3rd, and as long as it's still a tactical based fantasy roleplaying game, I'd consider it D&D. If you don't at least occasionally need tokens on a board or something on a board, I won't be interested.

[SofS]

Sometimes I wonder if old-school D&D was actually easier to learn and play as a kid than as an adult. I had great fun with it back in small times, but when I picked up some of the old rulebooks over a decade later, I started wondering what the hell kind of arcane rules we played with back then. I have nothing against those rules, but they just seem very strange to my current brain. (Also: alignment languages? Not really a very important rule, but they stand out in sheer absurdity.)

Mechanics aren't the only way that D&D has changed. Basic coloured-box D&D had a very simple, light-hearted approach to running games, for the most part. You made up places and people and history as needed, not with reference to a published setting. AD&D changed that at some point, as that's when published settings came into their own and started shaping the course of the line. Basic D&D was pretty abstract stuff, in some ways. It was like a series of attempts to reach the ideal dungeon crawl. AD&D, on the other hand, could get gleefully strange. I think I heard someone say that they played an official module where they found a working laser gun or something.

It's not unjustified to think of modern D&D as being fundamentally different from earlier editions. It is pretty different in mechanics and feel, though most of the basics are still around in some form. I think that D&D is more of an approach than anything else, though. The mechanics don't matter so much as long as they let you do whatever it is that D&D does. I ran The Standing Stones once as a solo adventure in GURPS 4th ed. and it ruled, probably moreso than if I had used the actual rules for it. Maybe D&D deserves a bit of credit for being flexible enough to survive so many edition changes.

[Autumn Blooming]

In a way, I don't understand how the old D&D editions are complicated. I was able to figure them out in 1st grade, for crying out loud. Are modern gamers that stupid, or I am just that much smarter than the average bear?
:smalltongue:

I do remember being very annoyed that my elf couldn't be a paladin . . .

It's not that people are stupid. The problem was that every type of roll used a different style of formula. Some rolls you wanted high numbers, some you wanted low (at least, I think you wanted high on some. I honestly don't remember saves). THAC0 (i go with thake-oh, personally) you want to roll low, but have to both add your bonuses and subtract your opponents. Which is the SAME THING as 3.x, just with the enemy's modifier moved to the other side, so everyone is adding, instead of mixing addition and subtraction and confusing people. Understanding what you had to do wasn't hard; it was remembering it during combat without pulling out half your library.

When you are dealing with large parties (6+ people, plus NPCs) a round of combat takes long enough that by the time you get back to your next turn, any plan you had is long gone or you don't remember what you wanted to do. Standardization fixed that problem.

3.x not only standardized most things, but also included rules for things outside of combat. Until the Options came out, the core rules just did not cut it. Character creation literally told you that your character's skills should be roughly what you were capable of; it wasn't until a supplemental book with OPTIONAL rules that you got any sort of quantification on abilities (same book, by the way, was munchkin heaven; it had buffet style racial abilities tables).

I disagree with the OP completely. The flavor and basic idea of D&D has stayed the same throughout the editions; only the delivery has changed. It's the same basic core, but much easier to get to now. I'm not so sure about some of the new 4e stuff, but 3e was definitely an improvement, so I'm willing to give them a chance before I write off 4th edition.

[Cuddly]

It's not that people are stupid. The problem was that every type of roll used a different style of formula. Some rolls you wanted high numbers, some you wanted low (at least, I think you wanted high on some. I honestly don't remember saves). THAC0 (i go with thake-oh, personally) you want to roll low, but have to both add your bonuses and subtract your opponents. Which is the SAME THING as 3.x, just with the enemy's modifier moved to the other side, so everyone is adding, instead of mixing addition and subtraction and confusing people. Understanding what you had to do wasn't hard; it was remembering it during combat without pulling out half your library.

When you are dealing with large parties (6+ people, plus NPCs) a round of combat takes long enough that by the time you get back to your next turn, any plan you had is long gone or you don't remember what you wanted to do. Standardization fixed that problem.

3.x not only standardized most things, but also included rules for things outside of combat. Until the Options came out, the core rules just did not cut it. Character creation literally told you that your character's skills should be roughly what you were capable of; it wasn't until a supplemental book with OPTIONAL rules that you got any sort of quantification on abilities (same book, by the way, was munchkin heaven; it had buffet style racial abilities tables).

I disagree with the OP completely. The flavor and basic idea of D&D has stayed the same throughout the editions; only the delivery has changed. It's the same basic core, but much easier to get to now. I'm not so sure about some of the new 4e stuff, but 3e was definitely an improvement, so I'm willing to give them a chance before I write off 4th edition.

There are a lot of roleplayers out there who aren't into the rollplaying- all that unnecessary crunch can scare away the drama kids, while the nerds are totally happy crunching numbers and looking at charts.

[Matthew]

It's not that people are stupid. The problem was that every type of roll used a different style of formula. Some rolls you wanted high numbers, some you wanted low (at least, I think you wanted high on some. I honestly don't remember saves). THAC0 (i go with thake-oh, personally) you want to roll low, but have to both add your bonuses and subtract your opponents. Which is the SAME THING as 3.x, just with the enemy's modifier moved to the other side, so everyone is adding, instead of mixing addition and subtraction and confusing people. Understanding what you had to do wasn't hard; it was remembering it during combat without pulling out half your library.

When you are dealing with large parties (6+ people, plus NPCs) a round of combat takes long enough that by the time you get back to your next turn, any plan you had is long gone or you don't remember what you wanted to do. Standardization fixed that problem.

3.x not only standardized most things, but also included rules for things outside of combat. Until the Options came out, the core rules just did not cut it. Character creation literally told you that your character's skills should be roughly what you were capable of; it wasn't until a supplemental book with OPTIONAL rules that you got any sort of quantification on abilities (same book, by the way, was munchkin heaven; it had buffet style racial abilities tables).

I think you're making way too much of a big deal about 'standardisation'. Previous editions used probability represented on whatever dice were suitable. 3e uses probability based on 1D20. The difference is minimal. An Ability Check between editions, for instance, is barely any different, only the base probability has changed.

[Charles Phipps]

It's Dungeons and Dragons friend, it's just not Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. The Advanced Dungeons and Dragons system made it move to a very complicated system that we all know and love.

I confess that, sometimes, I do miss some of the old absurdities.

* I miss that you could multiclass in numerous professions without being a ridiculously massive thing to do. If I'm a great wizard, it takes a tremendous amount of effort to learn to be a 1st level rogue.

* I miss the much higher EXP tables. Sure, rewards were higher but in Planescape: Torment you got a 2,000,000 Experience Award and it didn't bring you THAT high.

Overall, I think its important to remember that D&D still rules us all. Almost everyone has played a variant Dungeons and Dragons at this point if they're under the age of forty.

Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft, Bard's Tale and other video games were D&D even if they never acknowledged it. That's just the way things work.

[Premier]

It's not that people are stupid. The problem was that every type of roll used a different style of formula. Some rolls you wanted high numbers, some you wanted low (at least, I think you wanted high on some. I honestly don't remember saves). THAC0 (i go with thake-oh, personally) you want to roll low, but have to both add your bonuses and subtract your opponents.

Wrong, you had to roll high on THAC0, too. In fact, the only things you had to roll low on were Non-weapon Proficencies (which were specific to the Oriental Adventures setting in 1E and completely optional in 2E), reaction rolls (which in my personal experience are hardly ever used), and thief skills (which were the only percentile mechanics in the whole game, so it was pretty easy to learn that "if I see percentiles, I roll below it").

[Fhaolan]

I've been playing D&D for over thirty years.

Is 3.5/4e the same game as the blue-book edition I started with? No. But then AD&D wasn't either, nor was the whole Companion/Master/Immortal expansions, 2nd edition, the Powers & Options series, etc.

And I've gone backwards as well. The original Chainmail Fantasy Suppliment and the white-book editions. Those were quite different as well.

Each 'edition' of D&D is signifantly different in some way from every other edition. They may be more or less compatible (such as AD&D to 2nd edition), but they *are* different. As different as AD&D is from Palladium Fantasy, to tell you the truth.

Which is what it all boils down to. These 'editions' are effectively different systems. The only real advantage to one over the others is which one is a currenlty supported product line with new products. That's it.

3.x was a necessary change. Not because the system needed updating, but because TSR's executives had run the D&D product line into the grave with mismanagement. 3.x was necessary for WotC to re-enter the marketplace. Otherwise they would have been publishing product at a loss, which is stupid. Despite what a lot of people seem to think, not enough people were buying each individual 2nd edition product to justify the printing and distribution cost. TSR was losing money hand over fist. No new 2nd edition product was going to bring them back. Without moving to a new version of D&D, that product line was effectively and definately dead in the water.

I am fairly sure this new 4th edition is as much affected by market forces as the previous. Meaning that the only reason why Hasbro is putting out this new edition is because they are no longer getting a good return on their 3.5 products. Once a product is no longer selling over the point that it's worth the printing/distribution/writing/editing cost plus reasonable profit *it's time to kill that product*. That's life. This isn't Utopia, where all your dreams come true and nobody needs to actually make a living to survive. The Guidion Games/TSR/WotC/Hasbro employees need to make a living here. They're not going to make a living publishing suppliments at a loss.

[Dausuul]

*sings* It's still D&D to me...

I too started with the red boxed set, and I remember Basic D&D with great fondness. In fact, I went out about a year ago and bought the Classic D&D boxed sets (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master) on eBay, pretty much for nostalgia value. I have them sitting by my computer, and every so often I pick them up and flip through them, smiling as I remember the good old days.

That said, I wouldn't actually go back to using that system. Maybe for a trip down memory lane, or to give my current group (a bunch of whippersnappers who cut their dungeon-crawling teeth on 3.5E) a taste of what it was like back in the day, but not as an ongoing thing. The world has, as our local moderator might say, moved on, and D&D has moved on with it.

It's still D&D; it's still about getting your friends together, making up a band of imaginary heroes, and going forth to battle the forces of evil (or sometimes good), for glory, justice (or not), and XP. It's just... different, is all.

[Triaxx]

AD&D, on the other hand, could get gleefully strange. I think I heard someone say that they played an official module where they found a working laser gun or something.

Journey to the Spine of the World, Forgotten Realms, I think. I remember reading about it. Never played it, since I was two or so.

I never even played 3.0 really, I skipped it in favor of sticking with 2E. I finally made the change shortly after 3.5E arrived, since it looked like so much fun. And it was, not as complex as 2E, but I still play that as well. Just because they release a new version, doesn't mean you have to stop playing the old one. :smallbiggrin:

[Mr. Friendly]

Journey to the Spine of the World, Forgotten Realms, I think. I remember reading about it. Never played it, since I was two or so.

I never even played 3.0 really, I skipped it in favor of sticking with 2E. I finally made the change shortly after 3.5E arrived, since it looked like so much fun. And it was, not as complex as 2E, but I still play that as well. Just because they release a new version, doesn't mean you have to stop playing the old one. :smallbiggrin:

Actually the module people are looking for is called "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" and it was set in Greyhawk.

[Vectner]

You know one of the reasons that 1st ed combat charts existed on the inside of the DM's screen is that players weren't supposed to know what number they needed to roll to hit a creature. Players these days get too caught up in the mechanics and that bogs things down.

[Tarinth]

By that logic, Rollmaster is exactly the same as D&D.

Yes, it is, and so is hackmaster and a myriad of other games including board games like dragonstrike.

Anyway, as far as game mechanics are concerned, I guess some of us old schoolers are just better at subtracting for AC than newbies who've never had the pleasure of 2nd ed.

One thing I liked about second edition was that bad guys had abilities that no PC could ever attain, while nowadays, most of the non-epic bad guys have the same feats and abilities as the PC's, which takes a bit of mystery out of new DM created monsters because the PC's can usually get a sense of what their up against.

[Telonius]

I never played First Edition or AD&D. But 3.0 was tons of fun to play. 3.5 was better. Neither were perfect, but they didn't need to be. If 4.0 is more fun to play than 3.5 was/is, then I'll be happy to play it. If not, I'll keep on with 3.5.

[Roderick_BR]

Wrong, you had to roll high on THAC0, too. In fact, the only things you had to roll low on were Non-weapon Proficencies (which were specific to the Oriental Adventures setting in 1E and completely optional in 2E), reaction rolls (which in my personal experience are hardly ever used), and thief skills (which were the only percentile mechanics in the whole game, so it was pretty easy to learn that "if I see percentiles, I roll below it").
Just a nitpick: For ability checks, you rolled low. Strenght check? Roll 1d20, and get a result equal or smaller than your Strenght ability, no matter the check.
And you had the Hold Portals/Bend Bars percentile checks, based on Strenght (A 18/00 would give you 40% in succeeding), and the check based in Constitution ( don't remember the name) to survive resurrection and polymorphs effects.

[Matthew]

If I am understanding you right, you're missing the fact that your DM could add modifiers, which he was expected to do. If he just had you roll under Strength to pick up a stone or move a Boulder that was up to him, but a sensible DM would add a modifier (or simply decide if he could based on his strength relative to the task).

[Somebloke]

Firstly, I would like to go on record for saying that I dislike 2e and like 3e.

But I played some great games in 2e. Some real, "stay up all night and work your way through it until dawn" sort of games. Ultimately this came down to the DM and the players.

3e I like, although I've been in some bad groups where the game lags because of problems with the DMs.

Personally, while I enjoyed the simplification of the mechanics and the wealth of options that opened up with 3e, a good gaming group is the real deciding factor. I mean, I've played Call of Cthulu and had fun, and that is a system practically designed to punish players.

[fendrin]

Yes, they are very different systems. Knowing and using game rules is a skill.

Here's some anecdotal evidence as to why I feel 3.x is better than 2e. Now, as a preface, I'm the sort of player who will come up with a character concept and do up a character sheet just because I can. It's fun for me. So I've made MANY characters of both editions.

I played 2e for a few years before 3e came out. I was one of the people who got the 3.0 PHB the day it came out, and started using it even before the DMG was published. A few years later, I decided to run a 2e game for old times' sake. I opened up my old 2e PHB (held together with packing tape :smallbiggrin: )and was dumbfounded. I could barely figure out where to start. I gave up and just ran the game in 3e.

A few years into 3.x, I stopped playing altogether (moved away from my group). I found a new group that was played other systems (d6, HERO, and a homebrew system). A few years later, I started a D&D game for them. I opened up my PHB and whipped out an entire encounter in less than a half hour.

I had been away from 3e about the same length that I was away from 2e. But the skill was still there. It was THAT MUCH easier.

3.X has a faster learning curve, and better retention.

[Matthew]

Well, here's another anecdote, for what it's worth. I played AD&D from 1990-1995. I started playing again in 2001. I had no problems at all. I ran the first game without the books (I think we had a copy of the Saving Throws from somewhere).

I have played 3e on and off since its release and haven't found it to be any easier. If anything, I have to look up more rules.

[fendrin]

Well, here's another anecdote, for what it's worth. I played AD&D from 1990-1995. I started playing again in 2001. I had no problems at all. I ran the first game without the books (I think we had a copy of the Saving Throws from somewhere).

I have played 3e on and off since its release and haven't found it to be any easier. If anything, I have to look up more rules.
Did you try playing 3.X for 5 years then take 6 years off and try it again...

I'm not discounting your experience, I just had experiences with 2e and 3e in very similar situations. Your example sounds like you were much more familiar with 2e than you were with 3e, so of course you would look more up in 3e.

[Dhavaer]

and the check based in Constitution ( don't remember the name) to survive resurrection and polymorphs effects.

System Shock, I think.

[Matthew]

Did you try playing 3.X for 5 years then take 6 years off and try it again...

I'm not discounting your experience, I just had experiences with 2e and 3e in very similar situations. Your example sounds like you were much more familiar with 2e than you were with 3e, so of course you would look more up in 3e.
I would have a hard job, as I am sure you're aware, I would need a time travel machine! Let's just say I'm very familiar with the rules for 3e and have played my share of 3e games. I didn't play 2e exclusively during those five or six years either, I was into all kinds of games - ah, the joys of being in the 12-16 years old bracket!

I played 2e and 3e fairly simultaneously from around 2000. To be clear, I don't find either difficult at all, I just find the number of specific instance rulings in 3e to create unnecessary work (I know a lot of people love having a rule for everything and I can understand that too).

That said, I also had a copy of First Quest, which did a better job of explaining the rules for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons in 16 pages than the Players Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide combined.

[Triaxx]

Barrier Peaks? Ooops. Too much FR.

I never found 2e to be that hard to play, even now, I can still go back and wrangle up an adventure. I do have to take a bit of time to do it, namely deciphering my own notes, but once we get started, it's really hard to find a good stopping point.

I found a decrease in average dungeon size when I converted to 3.5e. In 2e the smallest dungeon we encountered was something on the size of twelve levels of fun and glory. (Read: Four levels of slightly underpowered encounters, and eight of monsters with way too much CR.) The largest was a thirty-five level monstrosity, that we played out over a year or so of monthly meetings.

In 3.5e, the smallest is only about five levels deep, and the largest is ten. Any more and we start to have problems. It just feels... repetitive. 2e was more complex, but when some shot at you with an arrow, all you needed was your AC and piercing resistance. Now we look at DR/x, AC. DR/x is fine, but when you're keeping track of three different DR's it's more complex than 2e.

(DR10/piercing, DR5/silver, and DR3/Fire for the record.)

[Hexus]

I've been playing D&D for over thirty years.

Is 3.5/4e the same game as the blue-book edition I started with? No. But then AD&D wasn't either, nor was the whole Companion/Master/Immortal expansions, 2nd edition, the Powers & Options series, etc.

And I've gone backwards as well. The original Chainmail Fantasy Suppliment and the white-book editions. Those were quite different as well.

Each 'edition' of D&D is signifantly different in some way from every other edition. They may be more or less compatible (such as AD&D to 2nd edition), but they *are* different. As different as AD&D is from Palladium Fantasy, to tell you the truth.

Which is what it all boils down to. These 'editions' are effectively different systems. The only real advantage to one over the others is which one is a currenlty supported product line with new products. That's it.

3.x was a necessary change. Not because the system needed updating, but because TSR's executives had run the D&D product line into the grave with mismanagement. 3.x was necessary for WotC to re-enter the marketplace. Otherwise they would have been publishing product at a loss, which is stupid. Despite what a lot of people seem to think, not enough people were buying each individual 2nd edition product to justify the printing and distribution cost. TSR was losing money hand over fist. No new 2nd edition product was going to bring them back. Without moving to a new version of D&D, that product line was effectively and definately dead in the water.

I am fairly sure this new 4th edition is as much affected by market forces as the previous. Meaning that the only reason why Hasbro is putting out this new edition is because they are no longer getting a good return on their 3.5 products. Once a product is no longer selling over the point that it's worth the printing/distribution/writing/editing cost plus reasonable profit *it's time to kill that product*. That's life. This isn't Utopia, where all your dreams come true and nobody needs to actually make a living to survive. The Guidion Games/TSR/WotC/Hasbro employees need to make a living here. They're not going to make a living publishing suppliments at a loss.

To add onto what you where saying. A major reason for the switch to 3rd edition was that AD&D was getting terribly convoluted. None core books referenced other non core books which referenced other books, I remember there being pages of indexes for other non core books so you could have an idea what the book you just bought was trying to accomplish.

A promise that was made with 3e was that no book will reference back to the to another book other then the DM's guide, MM or PHB. I'm not sure how true they kept to that but I've never had any qualms. So in turn the actually saved us money from having to go out and pick up every book and it's references.

I remember when I first introduced 3e to me 2e group, I poured over the books for awhile to get comfortable with the system and see if it was worth while to make use either convert pieces out of our old books or throw them to the wayside. DnD players are quirky to begin with, I think thats where alot of people are calling shanannigans on 4e (I remember they didnt have those sand crocodiles in the 3e MM I was outraged). In any case 3e passed our test of fire, I remember one of the main reasons was the level of player customization ( Feats blew our minds).

I think every group as a whole will sit down and give it a try, and decide if it's "Fun" enough to warrant it's use. . . Me I no longer have an active group, sadly It will be to the bulliten board of my FLGS for me, or start a game with my fiance and little sis/ her friends ='{. Also the online component (yes I am aware of openrpg) will make it easy for me to find a group to DM for again. Any how my 2 plat.

[Dyvim]

Just my tuppence worth, but 2nd Ed was bit of a maze. I could list a lot that was wrong with it; the non-weapon proficiencies were a mess. Saves were complicated. Non-humans were put into class straight-jackets at first level, while humans could realistically, only rarely dual-class. There was little in the way of variation within classes. Leveling at different rates was also annoying and there seemed little justification for that.

3rd Ed helped, by allowing easier development of characters down certain paths. Characters became more customisable with the easier multiclassing. Feats fitted into that well, and allowed you to have a party with two very different characters despite having the same class. (And true, good roleplayers will find a way of making each character they play different, but having differently built characters helps a lot). However, i think they made a slight mistake with spell casters and the item creation feats. Magic became common.

Was it just my groups, or was magic a lot rarer back in 2nd Ed? It effects the whole feel of the game. Characters seem to get much more powerful, earlier on in the game in 3rd, than when compared against 2nd Ed.

From the things i've seen about 4th Ed, they seem aware of this. However, i think they might have balanced it the wrong way, by giving more of the non-spell casting classes weird pseudo-magical abilities as some sort of compensation. They seem to be heavily inspired by world of warcraft and for some, that will be great. But at the moment, I'm worried....

There were some good things about both 2nd and 3rd edition. I'm sure I'll find some good things about 4th ed aswell.

[Dervag]

You know one of the reasons that 1st ed combat charts existed on the inside of the DM's screen is that players weren't supposed to know what number they needed to roll to hit a creature.That's a very Gygaxian approach, and it places an increased burden on the DM. A true Gygaxian DM can handle the increased burden, but annoys his players nigh unto death in the doing.

[Jayabalard]

Is 3.5/4e the same game as the blue-book edition I started with? No. But then AD&D wasn't either, nor was the whole Companion/Master/Immortal expansions, 2nd edition, the Powers & Options series, etc.Basic set was red, expert set was blue as I recall; the D&D books before those sets were brown and white iirc. So I'm not sure which edition you're referring to.

[Tormsskull]

I have to say I smiled when the image of the red-covered book came on the screen. My own experience was Basic D&D (And that line of books, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal), then to 2ed AD&D, and then to 3.0, and finally 3.5.

I can totally understand what the OP is talking about with the transition between TSR and WotC. I personally preferred TSR's approach, and I definitely enjoyed the TSR art far better than the WotC art.

In pre-WotC, the rules were definitely convoluted, though that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. I know several players who got a sense of accomplishment from learning how to play Advanced D&D. They felt slighted when 3e came out and "dumbed it down" so that an average person could understand it.

The biggest difference between pre-WotC and WotC though, is the emphasis on tactical combat. Maybe we just did it wrong, but in my groups for Basic D&D and Advanced D&D we never used a battle map. There was no such thing as 5-foot steps, AoO's, or anything remotely tactical in that frame.

When 3.x came out you pretty much were required to use minis and a battle map. This drastically altered the way the game played, as there was suddenly a whole new dimension to learn, a whole new skill that could be developed to become "good" at D&D.

See, in pre-WotC it didn't matter if you didn't know where to move, you just said "I attack this guy" or "I stay behind the warrior". If one of the enemies wanted to attack the guy behind the warrior, the DM would describe him trying to move around the warrior or plow through him or what have you.

In 3.x players know that enemies can bull charge and overpower and yadda yadda. They know roughly how far an enemy can move and thus can position themselves far enough away that an enemy will not be able to move and attack in one round.

In pre-WotC, none of this mattered. Battles were over nearly in a flash as compared to 3.x, which left more time for talking to NPCs, searching around for loot, interacting with one another, etc.

In 3.x my group literally can have 1 battle last an hour. In pre-WotC that same battle would last 10 minutes.

I hadn't realised the significance of this until within the last couple of years, and as such when I was developing my own tabletop RPG system I designed it to be free from battlemaps. When I ran my test group through it (who are all acclimated to 3.5 now) they were amazed at how fast everything moved. They were really excited at the pace that the story advanced.

Another huge difference between 3.x and pre-WotC is the exhaustive codifying of rules and options that players have. I remember when I was first taught to play Basic D&D (I was 5 at the time), and I asked my Dad "What can I do?" And his response was "Anything you want." I can remember thinking what would happen if I combined these different types of potions into one potion, what would happen? And what if I tried to take parts of magical creatures killed and combine them in someway, what would happen?

In those days, the DM was free to make something up as to what would happen, and it didn't always have to make sense, but hey, we're talking about a fantasy world.

3.x seems to have taken the angle of codifying everything and taking away some of the options from the DM by setting precedents on some of the key decisions they used to make. One of the main things that comes to mind is the mass-marketing of magic items in the standard D&D world so much that each one has a suggested retail value.

Of course, I think that regardless of what system you use, regardless of what edition you use, there are always going to be some things about the game that you are going to want to change. That's why I am hoping that 4e will get back to a more basic structure with a lot more options/flexibility for a DM to craft their own game elements.

[Fhaolan]

Basic set was red, expert set was blue as I recall; the D&D books before those sets were brown and white iirc. So I'm not sure which edition you're referring to.

Here you go:

http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/basic.html

Blue-book usually refers to 1st to 7th printing of the Basic rule set. Red-book refers to the 8th-14th printing. There were several changes between the Blue-Book and the Red-book printings, as during the Blue-book printings there was no 'Expert' or above set. You were expected to jump from Basic to Advanced at that time. When they created the 'Expert' set, they re-arranged the 'Basic' set a bit to match up.

[Brawls]

I too grew up wih D&D (starting with the boxed rules):

http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic2rule.html

We then progressed to the Adbanced D&D books. Along about Dieties & DemiGods we were playing a variety of RPGs (BootHill, Tunnels & Trolls, Villains & Vigilantes, Star Trek the RPG!) and our intrest in D&D flagged. By high school, our group had changed a few members and we were playing Champions almost exlusively. Then came college and everything changed for me as I left the state and developed new gaming friends. So I joined in a Role Master (Chart Master) campaign and stayed with that for a number of years. This group soon sundered and there was a hiatus of about five years before I hooked up with another group of friends who decided to start a 2nd Edition D&D Campaign. This was the D&D system they cut their teeth on, but for me it was all new. I'd never heard of THAC0 before. Still, the setting was familiar, even if the mechanics and the play style varried from my early days of gaming.

When WotC bought TSR and 3ed was released, I was not particularly thrown by a the new system. 3.5e seemed a small (though costly) step up. Growing up, we played from a bunch of the modules (from Keep on the Borderlands to Against the Giants). Since college, every campaign has been homebrewed. Now, having just turned 40, it is less the mechanics than the play style of the group and familiar elements (creatures, spells, diseases, etc) that make it D&D. I'm sure we will play 3.5 for while yet and then someone (likely me) will be persuaded to buy the 4e books and we'll make the transition if it improves gameplay on the whole. So, I guess I'm not too worried about 4e not being D&D to me. If my friends are there and we're having fun, it's close enough.

Brawls

[Titanium Dragon]

You really think things changed that much? I disagree. Granted Saving throws changed significantly, but for the better in my opinion. Thac0? It's essentially still in there. However instead of deling with convoluted numbers like like Thac0 6 vs. AC -9 you just say I have my BAB of +14 vs. AC 29. The math is the main thing that is simpler. It's all positive numbers, added to a die roll, against a target number. While it may not be a problem for you or your group, I've had more than my share of players who couldn't add their way out of a wet paper bag. Reduced math = faster gameplay.

I think the reality is not that the convolution matters (it really isn't that hard to add 9 to 6) but really that it was unnecessary; working purely in positive numbers makes life a lot easier, comparisions quicker, and in general just eliminates needless busywork.

And I think changing saving throws was a good thing; the old system was outright bizzare, while the new one makes a lot more sense.


For me the really impressive thing about 3e vs 2e was the streamlining of combat. We had battles done in a few minutes that would have taken several hours in 3e. 2e was so clunky by the end that you needed 4 books open at any given moment. The same thing has happened to 3e. Too many options, too many books. 4e will do the same thing I am sure, over time.

I think that part of this can be solved by better character sheets; there should be sections for what a feat does, ect. and a spot for its page and book. Same for spells.

I also think that 3rd edition is a superior product to second edition, but they're quite different in feel. Indeed, I'd argue that is the BIGGEST difference. Every 3rd edition campaign has to be monty haul by second edition standards, and I find that sad; most people I play with find the scarcity of magic in 2nd edition a lot more enjoyable than its omnipresence in third. I doubt they'll change it back, unfortunately, because the folks at WotC are all about monty haul.

[Matthew]

I think the reality is not that the convolution matters (it really isn't that hard to add 9 to 6) but really that it was unnecessary; working purely in positive numbers makes life a lot easier, comparisions quicker, and in general just eliminates needless busywork.

I agree with this and it's a simple fix, but I dislike the level of inflation in 3e.


And I think changing saving throws was a good thing; the old system was outright bizzare, while the new one makes a lot more sense.

There are advantages and disadvantages to the D20 Saving Throws; the chief disadvantage is how much more vulnerable characters have become.

[Bosh]

Bah! AD&D 1st Ed did a lot to ruin a good thing. Old D&D worked fairly well and kept things good and simple and then AD&D went and dumped in a bunch of needless complication (just try to play 1st Ed initiative by RAW, ye gods!). Lot of cool stuff in 1-2 Ed but really overburdered by clunky mechanics with lots of little sub-systems that didn't really fit together (there are how many different rule subsystems for being sneaky in 1st Ed that all work in different ways?).

The reset button really needed to have been pushed. Only problem is the reset led to far far far too much of this: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0034.html

I'd really like to see an updated version of Rules Cyclopedia D&D with some of the rough bits smoothed out and some modern game design ideas thrown in.

[Fuzzy_Juan]

I will say, I loved 1st ed...and I loved 2nd ed...the only real 'bad' part was the whole racial limits on choosing classes and level caps...we thought that was stupid, so we just house ruled it away. Some we kept though...like no dwarven wizards...but monks...no reason a rare demi-human can't be one...and as long as the race has a god...no reason they can't be a paladin. Level limits to Dwarves and Elves...please...DnD was based off a genre in which all the elves and dwarves were individually much more powerful than the humans due to their long lives...but with hard work they could equal the demihumans...but the best of each race would be similar in power (same level max).

The addition of all the optional rules suppliments did make things more complicated, but as long as players and DMs memorized the optional rules they were using and people wrote down what their stuff did, everything was smooth. Optional rules were optional! noone was forced to use the Combat and Tactics...while cool, it did bog things down and all the sub stats were just ways to royally cheese...and really...what warrior didn't want to spend proficiencies on specialization and mastery and grandmastery later on...

Those special uses for Weapon and non-weapon proficiencies were the first 'feats'.

3rd ed...took a bit of getting used to, but it all came fast enough...our main problem is that so many books came out so fast that there was hardly ever any time to really get to know the system before options changed. Where first it seemed that there were only 3-4 feats that you'd have to balance between...it soon became a toss up between so many builds that it is now just nuts. I am sure 4th ed, like 2nd and 3rd will follow this path too...and with even more alacrity.

I'm sure my group will get some of the 4th ed stuff...if only to test it all out...but every now and then, it is fun to brreak out the old books and go back to the good old 2nd ed...(we mixed some 1st ed rules in there too...since we kept monk and assasin)...I like being able to play my Council of Wyrms Dragonslayer kit...

[Sebastian]

Didn't read all the thread so sorry if I repeat things already said , but...
The differences between 1st/2nd ed and 3rd(and very probably 4th) is not about the mechanics, BAB or thac0, 5 or 3 saving throws, feat or NWP, (actually from the mechanics point of view 3rd edition is better). it is about the spirit of the game, it is the difference between infravison and low light vision, about a paladin that had to search his holy mount with a quest and take care of him if he want for it to survive and a paladin that get it automatically at a certain level complete with his own pokeball (because else how could use it into the dungeons?), it is a wizard that cast Wish risking his own health (or worse) and one that risk "only" 5000xp, or another than get hurt because someone dispelled his Fly spell (or it end at the wrong moment) and one that just float down when it is dispelled and always know perfectly how long it last.
You can like one way more than the other but things like that are what make the games really differents.