[Pre 3.x] What did people do before Feats?

[Kiero]

One of the criticisms I've seen levelled against Castles and Crusades repeatedly is that there's no "differentiation" because classes are mechanically identical. And yet this is exactly the situation in all the pre-3.x editions of D&D. AD&D 2e had the optional Weapon and Non-weapon Proficiencies, but even then they weren't anywhere near as comprehensive nor as complicated as Feats. Especially lacking that whole "you must get these Feats at exactly this level, and plan in advance where you want to go" that you get in 3.x.

So what gives? Has 3.x completely shifted people's expectations as to what constitutes a character in D&D? Are we saying that before Feats were invented, we simply all played the same character, where one Fighter was the same as another, aside from race and choice of weapons?

[Kurald Galain]

I'm unfamiliar with C&C, but I think the point is that you shouldn't compare it to earlier editions of D&D, but to other roleplaying systems.

That said I don't see why it would be a problem that things are "mechanically identical" - what exactly is meant by that? Of course they all use the same dice mechanic, it would be silly to use dice>difficulty for fighters, dice pool for wizards, and draw-a-card for clerics.

[Kiero]

I'm unfamiliar with C&C, but I think the point is that you shouldn't compare it to earlier editions of D&D, but to other roleplaying systems.

C&C is essentially a cut-down version of AD&D 1st edition. It is usually compared directly to D&D 3.x when people are evaluating it. Indeed one of its selling points is that its simpler than 3.x.

That said I don't see why it would be a problem that things are "mechanically identical" - what exactly is meant by that? Of course they all use the same dice mechanic, it would be silly to use dice>difficulty for fighters, dice pool for wizards, and draw-a-card for clerics.

Mechanically identical, meaning as far as rules go, the abilities of one 4th level fighter and another are exactly the same. There's no "special abilities" which you get to choose or the like. There's pretty much no optimisation or build.

Unlike in 3.x where two 4th level fighters could have very different combinations of Feats, and thus be very different as far as the rules they are using go. Least before Proficiencies, Kits and the Players' Option series (for 2nd edition).

[its_all_ogre]

i will get shot down for this but there you go..................

pre 3.x fighters were pretty much identical mechanically apart from what weapons/armour you used. stat scores were the primary and often only difference MECHANICALLY. i caps that to stop scores of moaners from stating RP etc.

pre feats a levels 8 fighter with higher str/dex/con was simply better than an identical fighter with slightly poorer scores. especially str. a str 18 fighter was much much more powerful than a str 17 ftr.

i have been back to 2nd ed once after memories of great games etc and it just sucked (for me) due to lack of options.

[B!shop]

I agree with its_all_ogre about the mechanically part of a character.

Difference in earlier edition was all in play style and role playing.
Untrackable with tables, mechanics and rules.

[Swooper]

Well, there was kits. Those were kind of like templates added to classes. I remember a friend of mine playing the thief (that's AD&D rogue) kit "Bounty Hunter" that gave you all the weapon proficiencies at the cost of some of your thieving skills. I also remember the "Witch" wizard kit, which gave you some special abilities as you leveled up (like flight and being able to curse) at the cost of some restrictions (at some point, flowers would wilt around you and animals would fear you).

Apart from those, only wizards had the potential to be different from one another by choosing different spells. There was a maximum number of spells you could learn per spell level, based on your int score, so you couldn't just buy scrolls and write them down.

[AtomicKitKat]

It was all pretty optionless until Players' Options. I have Spells and Powers, and they explored stuff like Spontaneous Casting(which, if translated to 3.x, would probably look pretty similar to the current incarnation of Sorceror). Also stuff like Defiling/Preserving, making pacts with other powers, etc.

[Premier]

First point I'd like to make, it would be better to compare 3.x with editions predating 2E in this regard, since the farther you go back, the clearer the difference gets.

Now, regarding feats, there are two main issues here:

One, as people have already said, all characters of the same class (say, all fighters) used to mechanically "identical", save for ability scores and the like. However, what these people neglected to say is that this is because other than class-specific abilities (spellcasting, thief skills, etc), every character can do everything in old editions. The dozens and hundreds of skills and feats are present in 3.x because the system is built on the basic philosophy of "if you don't have the appropriate skill, you can't do it". Old editions, however, havea completely different philosophy. In Classic D&D, the basic assumption is that your character can attempt to do anything he wants.

As an example, let's say you want to intimidate a tied-up prisoner to make him spill his beans. In 3.x, it's a question of "Do you have the Intimidation skill? No? Sorry, you can't do it." In old editions, there's no such irrealistic restriction. The DM just thinks about it for a moment, than say, for example, "Okay, roll against your charisma with a bonus of 4 (for a blood-smeared barbarian with 18/74 STR) / penalty of 4 (for a weasely teenage wizard in spectacles).

Now, I anticipate that some people might object, crying "But that doesn't count, since the DM had to make up the mechanic on the spot!" Well, that he did. And there's nothing wrong with that. Unlike the gaming culture of 3.x, the culture of old editions does not consider in-the-spot ruling a sign that the "official" rules have a hole, but instead take it for granted - this is the way the game is supposed to be played.

So to reiterate the point: old editions characters didn't have mechanically differentiated abilities because in old editions everybody could try everything.


Second point, about combat feats and the like. In old editions, combat is abstract. In 3.x, combat is claimed to be abstract, but isn't. In the former, it's assumed that different fighters have different styles - some might depend on heavy strikes to break through, others might be flashy sword-twirlers, whatever; but all of these differences are just compressed into one single attack roll per round, going with the assumption that each fighter uses the perks of his personal style to the optimum.

In contrast, 3.x introduces uncountable, mechanically differentiated feats. However, in doing so, it abandons the abstract combat it claims to represent. When every single attack roll represents a single strike, and when every slightly faster, stronger, more curvy or whateverthehell strike is represented by a mechanically different roll, that is not abstraction, but a half-assed attempt at detailed simulationism (half-assed because important aspect liek HP or armour still work abstractly).


So to answer the question of the original poster: Yes, 3.x has changed people's expectations of what a character is. And yes, many people say that before Feats were invented, we simply all played the same character, where one Fighter was the same as another, aside from race and choice of weapons. However, for every person like that, there's another one who says that 3.x is not about roleplaying fantasy characters in search of adventure, but about conducting accountancy on forms with the words V.A.T. and Annual Revenue are crossed out and replaced by Base Attack Bonus and Feat List. Only you won't meet the latter people on this particular board.

[Kurald Galain]

Ah, I get that. Part of it was roleplaying. Also, (I'm not sure about 1st ed) in 2nd ed there were "secondary skills", basically saying that "before I became an adventurer, I used to be a sailor" or something, which nets you related skills, and there were the weapon/non-weapon proficiencies. Even before skills-n-powers, fighters were different in their choice of weapon profs (e.g. archer, TWF, etc).

Note that the diversity is not necessarily much better in 3rd ed: A fighter with 18 str is still much, much better than a fighter with 17 str (moreso, in fact, since ability scores have become more important in 3rd ed) and while there are indeed zillions of feats, consensus about which ones you "must have" for your good build is pretty strong.


Also, what Premier said.

[Matthew]

First Edition did indeed have Secondary Skills and, later on, it also had Non Weapon Proficiencies.

I pretty much agree with what Premier has to say on the subject, though I have to point out that a lot of what 3.x limits is an illusion. You can still do many of the things you could do in previous editions, but it requires a DM who recognises that and is willing to make up rules.

Also, The Complete Fighter's Handbook (1989) was the first major step along the 'combat diversity' road.

[Blackbrrd]

What Premier says is quite true, previous editions were more flexible and put more power in the hands of the DM. The newer editions (3.0, 3.5) gives some of that power to the player. "It says that I can do x on my character sheet, so I am gonna do it".

The biggest difference when it comes to combat is probably the change in round-length. From 60 seconds in AD&D to 6 seconds ind Dnd 3.x. This changed the way combats were fought..

[Kurald Galain]

What Premier says is quite true, previous editions were more flexible and put more power in the hands of the DM. The newer editions (3.0, 3.5) gives some of that power to the player. "It says that I can do x on my character sheet, so I am gonna do it".

However, this does lead to "one trick pony" characters, like the fighter trip build that essentially can't do anything but trip, or won't do anything but trip.

The biggest difference when it comes to combat is probably the change in round-length. From 60 seconds in AD&D to 6 seconds ind Dnd 3.x. This changed the way combats were fought..

I do believe most everybody houseruled AD&D combat rounds to <10 seconds because 60 seconds really doesn't make any sense. At any rate, given that combat is as abstract as it is, I haven't seen it making a big difference except flavor-wise.

[Matthew]

Interestingly, the Combat Round had already been 10-15 Seconds in various guises. I think one of the editions of Basic D&D had a 10 Second Combat Round, (A)D&D Combat and Tactics definitely had a 10-15 Second Combat Round.

[Raum]

Feats have become limitations in 3.x. In older versions we didn't need feats, as Premier mentions, we'd simply describe what we wanted to accomplish and negotiate the how with the DM. Want to track deer through the forest? It might be an Int check, or possibly Wis. It depends on how you describe it and what the DM thinks is appropriate. Now you can't follow tracks with a DC over 10 unless you have the track feat.

Sure, mechanically all level 4 fighters were the same, but they were equally capable. Now they're different, but it's the limitations differentiating them.

[Kiero]

The biggest difference when it comes to combat is probably the change in round-length. From 60 seconds in AD&D to 6 seconds ind Dnd 3.x. This changed the way combats were fought..

I'd say the amount of stuff you actually have to do as a player is more significant. Unless you've done your prep-work before the session, combat in 3.x with all those options is much slower.

[Dhavaer]

A fighter with 18 str is still much, much better than a fighter with 17 str (moreso, in fact, since ability scores have become more important in 3rd ed)

Didn't 2ed have some 'great strength' rule or something if you have 18 str?

[Matthew]

Yeah. These were the scores:

{table=head]Attribute Score|Attack Bonus|Damage Bonus|Weight Allowance|Maximum Press|Open Doors | Bend Bars
14-15 | Normal | None | 55 | 170 | 8 | 7%
16 | Normal | +1 | 70 | 195 | 9 | 10%
17 | +1 | +1 | 85 | 220 | 10 | 13%
18 | +1 | +2 | 110 | 255 | 11 | 16%
18/01-50 | +1 | +3 | 135 | 280 | 12 | 20%
18/51-75 | +2 | +3 | 160 | 305 | 13 | 25%
18/76-90 | +2 | +4 | 185 | 330 | 14 | 30%
18/91-99 | +2 | +5 | 235 | 380 | 15(3) | 35%
18/00 | +3 | +6 | 335 | 480 | 16(6) | 40%
[/table]

It was annoying when your Fighter had Strength 15 and his companion had Strength 18/00. Anyway, yeah, the difference between 17 and 18 wasn't too great, but Exceptional Strength made it crazy.

[Premier]

Didn't 2ed have some 'great strength' rule or something if you have 18 str?

Percentile STR. If you have STR 18 and you are a fighter, then you roll d100, and get a STR score like "18/64", which would give you better to hit and damage bonuses than a simple 18. The whole thing WAS criticised pretty heavily for being illogical and not just calling these values 19, 20, etc. Eventually, the Dark Sun setting replaced percentile strength with over-18 values for simplicity's sake.

[its_all_ogre]

yes exceptional strength. 17 str gives +1 to hit and damage. 18 str gave between +1 to hit and +2 damage all the way up to +3 to hit and +6 to damage.
i think that a variation of +2 to hit and +5 to damage is much much higher than +1 to both? unless my maths is totally different to yours.
in addition monsters generally had fewer hps than in 3.x and hence +6 damage actually meant more.
dammit ninja'ed!

[Matthew]

Percentile STR. If you have STR 18 and you are a fighter, then you roll d100, and get a STR score like "18/64", which would give you better to hit and damage bonuses than a simple 18. The whole thing WAS criticised pretty heavily for being illogical and not just calling these values 19, 20, etc. Eventually, the Dark Sun setting replaced percentile strength with over-18 values for simplicity's sake.

Did it? Attribute Scores already went up to 25, what did they do in Dark Sun? [Edit] Never mind, I forgot that I had a PDf of the Campaign Setting.

Personally, I preferred the Basic D&D version:

{table=head]Attribute Score|Modifier
3 | -3
4-5 | -2
6-8 | -1
9-12 | -
13-15 | +1
16-17 | +2
18 | +3
[/table]

[SoulCatcher78]

First point I'd like to make, it would be better to compare 3.x with editions predating 2E in this regard, since the farther you go back, the clearer the difference gets.

Now, regarding feats, there are two main issues here:

One, as people have already said, all characters of the same class (say, all fighters) used to mechanically "identical", save for ability scores and the like. However, what these people neglected to say is that this is because other than class-specific abilities (spellcasting, thief skills, etc), every character can do everything in old editions. The dozens and hundreds of skills and feats are present in 3.x because the system is built on the basic philosophy of "if you don't have the appropriate skill, you can't do it". Old editions, however, havea completely different philosophy. In Classic D&D, the basic assumption is that your character can attempt to do anything he wants.

As an example, let's say you want to intimidate a tied-up prisoner to make him spill his beans. In 3.x, it's a question of "Do you have the Intimidation skill? No? Sorry, you can't do it." In old editions, there's no such irrealistic restriction. The DM just thinks about it for a moment, than say, for example, "Okay, roll against your charisma with a bonus of 4 (for a blood-smeared barbarian with 18/74 STR) / penalty of 4 (for a weasely teenage wizard in spectacles).

Now, I anticipate that some people might object, crying "But that doesn't count, since the DM had to make up the mechanic on the spot!" Well, that he did. And there's nothing wrong with that. Unlike the gaming culture of 3.x, the culture of old editions does not consider in-the-spot ruling a sign that the "official" rules have a hole, but instead take it for granted - this is the way the game is supposed to be played.

So to reiterate the point: old editions characters didn't have mechanically differentiated abilities because in old editions everybody could try everything.


Second point, about combat feats and the like. In old editions, combat is abstract. In 3.x, combat is claimed to be abstract, but isn't. In the former, it's assumed that different fighters have different styles - some might depend on heavy strikes to break through, others might be flashy sword-twirlers, whatever; but all of these differences are just compressed into one single attack roll per round, going with the assumption that each fighter uses the perks of his personal style to the optimum.

In contrast, 3.x introduces uncountable, mechanically differentiated feats. However, in doing so, it abandons the abstract combat it claims to represent. When every single attack roll represents a single strike, and when every slightly faster, stronger, more curvy or whateverthehell strike is represented by a mechanically different roll, that is not abstraction, but a half-assed attempt at detailed simulationism (half-assed because important aspect liek HP or armour still work abstractly).


So to answer the question of the original poster: Yes, 3.x has changed people's expectations of what a character is. And yes, many people say that before Feats were invented, we simply all played the same character, where one Fighter was the same as another, aside from race and choice of weapons. However, for every person like that, there's another one who says that 3.x is not about roleplaying fantasy characters in search of adventure, but about conducting accountancy on forms with the words V.A.T. and Annual Revenue are crossed out and replaced by Base Attack Bonus and Feat List. Only you won't meet the latter people on this particular board.

Well said.

Back to the OP-comparing C&C (which I haven't played) to D&D3.xx is like apples and oranges, they're two different games where the only thing in common is the fantasy RPG link. C&C is apparently touted as being a simplified system for those of us who dislike having to learn 52 new rules to run a round of combat. While both systems will have their particular cheerleaders, whichever type of system you prefer is the one that's better.

[its_all_ogre]

i was referring to 2nd ed ad&d str scores.
plus i disagree with the higher str = better fighter.
3rd ed str 18 dex 15 con 18 two weapon fighter.
vs str 16 dex 13 con 16 two handed weapon fighter. assuming both level 4 who would win?
my money is on two handed fighter.

in 2nd ed the first fighter would win. full stop.

[Matthew]

Actually, I was addressing Premier's comment about Dark Sun, but you posted before I did (if indeed you are addressing something that I said). I have edited the post for clarity.

[its_all_ogre]

Actually, I was addressing Premier's comment about Dark Sun, but you posted before I did (if indeed you are addressing something that I said).

heh indeed i was. and yes darksun used either 5d4 or 4d4+4 depending on dm choice for stat generation.
which made the percentile strength issue worse not better imo.
after all now you could have str 17 +1/+1 to hit/damage and if you rolled two higher you would have str 19 +3/+7 to hit damage. no doubts there which would be better 'mechanically'.
you can have fun with poor stats, unless the guy opposite you is playing exactly the same character type and has much better stats to the point that you feel you add nothing to the game.
this was also a weakness of 'everyone can do everything' style games. you could be outclassed at everything by one player purely because they rolled better stats.
now a skillful dm can avoid this by dm fiat, but should they have to do that?
my answer is no.

[Serenity]

It's hardy impossible to intimidate someone without the skill. It still says in the DMG that the DM should provide bonuses or penalties based on the situation, and most are willing to let you use your strength attribute to modify your roll. So, yes, you can intimidate tied up prisoners without the skill. Perhaps you won't be able to intimidate the battle-hardened general trained to resist interrogation, but that's the point isn't it?

[Matthew]

It looks like it wasn't quite as bad as all that. Strength 19 in Dark Sun meant +2 AB and +3 DB. I do agree, though, it is irritating as hell to have someone with high Strength outshining your Character of the same type.

It's hardy impossible to intimidate someone without the skill. It still says in the DMG that the DM should provide bonuses or penalties based on the situation, and most are willing to let you use your strength attribute to modify your roll. So, yes, you can intimidate tied up prisoners without the skill. Perhaps you won't be able to intimidate the battle-hardened general trained to resist interrogation, but that's the point isn't it?

Indeed, but the scale of difference is crazy. Anywho, the point is that D&D 3.x mechanics work fine with a good DM, but so did ()A)D&D mechanics.

[Tengu]

All the "in our days, we actually RPed some stuff, today the mechanics take care of it all, blah blah" replies are rather amusing. What is better in a system that gives you less options?

[Matthew]

Missed the point there, Tengu. (A)D&D and 3.x have exactly the same number of options. The only difference is that D&D 3.x has codified more of them and created an illusion of limitation.

[Kiero]

Back to the OP-comparing C&C (which I haven't played) to D&D3.xx is like apples and oranges, they're two different games where the only thing in common is the fantasy RPG link. C&C is apparently touted as being a simplified system for those of us who dislike having to learn 52 new rules to run a round of combat. While both systems will have their particular cheerleaders, whichever type of system you prefer is the one that's better.

I know they're not a lot alike, not least because C&C is based on AD&D 1st edition, not 3.x. But that's the comparison often made, not least because nowadays 3.x is a touchstone that many people are familiar with.

[Matthew]

What are the kinds of differences between OSRIC and C&C?