What did you like/dislike about AD&D?

[Grey Paladin]

I have been working on the unholy child of 3.5 and AD&D 2E for a while now, but it has only now occurred to me that I am not entirely sure what did the majority of AD&D players actually liked about their version(or what they dislike about regular D&D, especially 3.X), knowing that my taste in gaming is vastly different then that of most and holding the hope of homebrewing the (best, I am sure there are already many others) unofficial 3rd edition of AD&D I figured out I should research this before continuing with my work.

Thanks ahead.

[Ashtar]

Well there was much less emphasis on numbers, more emphasis on RP. Faster combat rounds... And much longer levels, in 3rd I always get the impression I'm gaining levels too fast...
Simply less rules.

And specially, I could make out a new enemy with 3 numbers, HD, AC, Damage. All the rest was derived, quickly. (HD -> THAC0 + Saves).

Oh well, I don't know, it just *had* that different feel.

[Matthew]

Yeah, pretty much that there are less default rules. Also, Fighters have the best saving throws going. Task resolution is open to interpretation, combat movement is simultaneous, no Feats or Skills to limit the actions of the Characters, no critical hits and much lower power increments.

I'm not a fan of the Attribute Tables or one miute long Combat Rounds.

Have you taken a look at Castles & Crusades? That's pretty much a modern version of AD&D.

[Yami]

I disliked what they did with elves. Greatly. I liked what they did with minotaurs, as well as the weapon speed tables and spell casting times.

But I also liked haste.

[Swordguy]

3.x seems like it should work better in theory - what with all the different combat options and Feats and things - but AD&D just flows so well in practice. Part of it is not having to keep track of so many minute modifiers or situational bonuses. Part of it is the general "looseness" of the system - a DM has more reign to make decisions without having to consult a rulebook. Part of it seems to simply make more sense (weapon speeds and casting times).

I don't like the long combat rounds, though. We always called a combat round 10 seconds instead of a minute - made more sense to us. Of course, the single best house rule (as voted by my players) I ever had in my D&D games was to transform the initiative system into something very closely resembling Shadowrun, using passes within the same round dependent on one's init score. Worked wonders. I could never do something like that with 3.x - the system isn't flexible enough for it since there's so much stuff that messes with init.

[John Campbell]

In all honesty, the only things I really like better about 3.x are the removal of the class/race restrictions, and replacement of the bizarre and exception-laden saving throw categories with ones for which it's generally obvious which save is required in any given situation... though I dislike how the actual bonuses are produced. Oh, and attacks of opportunity, though as someone with extensive real experience in melee combat, I have some quibbles with the particulars. The basic concept is sound, though.

I'm still torn on whether or not 3.x's sometimes useful but frequently totally broken skill system is actually better than 2E's half-assed useless non-weapon proficiency system or not. 2E's system you could at least totally ignore without it having much effect on the game.

Basically everything else that 3.x changed, I hate. Multiclassing - which pretty much worked, except for the race/class thing - was eliminated in 3.x; instead they force everyone to do what AD&D called dual-classing - which has never, ever worked right - and introduced combo prestige classes to putty over the gaping holes. And, uh, seriously, guys, when you've got a class/level-based system that has dozens of "base" classes and hundreds of prestige classes, you're Doing Something Wrong. They also accelerated the XP curve, which not only ramped the power curve up to a ridiculous degree, it even further broke (multi-/dual-)classing.

There's a lot of stuff that got simplified, without any apparent understanding of why it was complicated to begin with. The ability modifiers are one of those (the new scale is simpler, but drastically increases the gap between the haves and the have-nots). The XP tables are one of those (there was a reason that it cost more to level up as a wizard than as a rogue).

And, of course, everyone harps on how difficult THAC0 was, but it's fundamentally the same mechanic as BAB, except that you subtract instead of adding. (Yeah, yeah, I know... subtraction is haaaaaaaarrrrd.) That said, I do slightly prefer the newer AC system. It's not actually any easier, but higher numbers being better is more intuitive, so it's one less thing to have to explain to new players.

Feats were a nice idea, as a way to give characters some variation, get them out of the class straightjacket, but as things currently stand, there's a feat for everything, and you can't do anything without the feat, which actually reduces flexibility. In AD&D, you could come up with a bright idea, and maybe the DM would have to come up with some rules on the fly, but you could try it. 3.x has rules for it! Sadly, they almost always say that you can't do it because you don't have the right feat. (This is becoming more and more the case with more recent expansion books. It's not so bad in core.) And you can't get the right feat, because you don't get nearly enough of them, and there's a handful of feats that you have to get or your character will be severely handicapped in day-to-day use.

I hate what they did to armor. I've always disliked the complete unrealism of D&D's method of handling AC - the Armor Provides DR + Defense Bonus variants make things much better - but 3.x's Dex mod limits make things even worse. Heavier armor stops being better (and, historically, people almost always wore the heaviest armor they could get their hands on, for good reason), and there are several historically popular armor types that you'd have to be severely brain-damaged to ever even consider wearing in D&D 3.x. And they didn't even do a rational job of handing out the crippling... "chain mail" has a worse Dex modifier than a breastplate? WTF? These people really need to actually try wearing the stuff before they make rules about it.

The elimination of casting times turns casters from major but manageable threats to unstoppable gods. Having casting provoke attacks of opportunity almost fixed that, except for the minor problem that no mage worth their salt can fail a defensive casting roll. Metamagic makes this worse.

Meh. That's enough ranting for tonight.

[Reel On, Love]

Oh, man. I've actually been in an AD&D game, recently (modified, of course, as all AD&D games are).

The system is utter crap. It has no redeeming values. I'm still enjoying the campaign, mind--but it's because it's a fun campaign; the system is hindering, not helping.

Very little of it is actually coherent or thought-out or related to other things. If you like that the DM has to handwave everything, I can see no reason to run this system instead of freeform or Wushu or something else that has that emphasis. Something like FATE would definitely be a lot better. Modify for grittiness at your leisure.

Things that have caught my baleful eye:
-As a house rule, all mages can specialize, including multiclassed mages. Also, multiclassed Fighters can specialize and even double-specialize. This is obviously not a balanced house rule, but my double-bow-specialized Fighter/Illusionist is ridiculously good anyway. Without this house rule, I'd be just as good; being a mage, too, just gives me a tiny bit of flexibility, really (once a day, I can throw a Phantasmal Force out). The point is, double-specialized archers specifically and double-specialized fighters overall have a huge advantage.

-At level one--although due to a huge windfall of XP last session, this character in particular is gaining at least one, maybe two levels--my THAC0 is 13: 20, -2 for Dex, -3 for Double Specialization, -1 for being an elf, -1 for a Quality bow. This means I hit a reasonable AC of 5 on an 8... for 1d6+3 (specialization) + 2 (we're adding STR damage to bows built for it, but halved and rounded up. I rolled high stats, which is, of course, the key to Winning AD&D). I can do this from horseback thanks to the Riding NWP, or at two shots a round, since bows have an ROF of 2.
Compare this to a melee fighter, who has to actually get into range to trade blows (although he does even more damage once he's there). Compare this to a thief, who can't actually make any damn skill checks at ALL reliably yet. Compare this to a wizard, who gets ONE SPELL at this level. One. Spell. Two, with specialization.

-That reminds me: the "10% bonus XP for having a high stat!" is pretty much the most compact example of ABSOLUTELY AWFUL game design I can imagine. A Fighter with, say, percentile strength is already at a HUGE advantage over one who doesn't have it. Whee, let's make sure he earns even more XP, too!

-I'm also running a bard; we have two characters each. I don't get XP for doing my social thing--in fact, if I remove a combat, I can deprive us of XP. What's more, my thief skills suck worse than a thief's, and the inspire ability is absolutely stupid.
To give a +1 bonus to hit, I have to inspire for THREE rounds first... and then the bonus lasts ONE ROUND at level 1. That's unutterably pointless.

-The XP tables don't actually make any sense. Fighters are much, much better than wizards at low levels. Shouldn't wizards level faster at first, and then taper off? Why do bards level so fast they get a caster level or two on Wizards?

-The saving throw tables are totally arbitrary, and, bizzarely, as you become a more powerful mage, your opponents get much less likely to be affected by your spells. They're just as challenging... your spells with saves just stop working.

-Infravision is stupid in execution. The section that warns you to BEWARE of mixing SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY with a FANTASY REALM, however, is hilarious when read out loud in a booming self-important voice.

-"Skills" are stupid. Non-weapon proficiencies never tell you what to roll, so success is basically arbitrary; why bother having them? I can just say "my character learned astrology, tailoring, and bongcrafting because of his upbringing".

-Opening doors is a Strength check. Lifting grates is a percentile roll. Why? Because AD&D is totally incoherent; each bit of the rules is designed arbitrarily in a near-complete void.

-At 17 Strength, you have +1 to hit, +1 damage. At 19 Strength, you have +3 to hit, +7 to damage. WTF.

-Stats in general: the bonuses follow no coherent, sensible pattern... and you don't start getting them until unreasonably high numbers. This makes the most important part of the game rolling well on stats.

-System Shock and Resurrection Survival: both stupid. Both arbitrary. They're even different arbitrary numbers! Incidentally, Resurrection Survival is such a stupid idea. "You're resurrected! Now roll to NOT GO BACK TO BEING DEAD. Wow, THIS makes the game fun!
Also, a character with 3 CON has a 30% chance of surviving System Shock to a character with 18 CON's 99%. However, neither has a bonus/penalty to save vs. poison (although even lower/higher CONs give one).

-Chance to Learn Spell: this is stupid and pointless. Why bother making it even more difficult? It's like somebody decided to throw in some things just to annoy players. We dispense with this one.
Also, being really intelligent makes you immune to illusion spells of a certain level. Even though a higher-level spell producing the same illusion would still work.

-Chance of Spell Failure: with a 12 Wisdom--above average!--a spellcaster still has a 5% chance of any given spell fizzling.

After making high ability scores so mechanically important, the book then tells you about how you shouldn't care about having them.

-Class restrictions and level limits: so obviously stupid that as far as I know, EVERYONE, ALWAYS ignored them. So there's no reason to play a human anymore.

-Class ability minimums. Back to the design philosophy of playing what the dice tell you to play... which sucked. And good luck rolling that 17 CHA if you want to run a Paladin for some reason. Which you don't, since then you can't double specialize, which wins.

-Ranger followers include animals. That they can't speak to. So they randomly get things following them around. "Yep, this bear just follows me around. No clue, dude."

-Many of the racial thief skill adjustments make no sense. Also, they're way too absolutist.
-The Dexterity adjustments to thief skills are also pretty arbitrary. Also, with a 12 Dexterity, you still have a penalty to move silently. That's right, your above average dexterity still gets you penalized.

-It is basically impossible to be a thief who is not a complete and consistent screw-up, since until you're very high level you've got a ridiculous chance of just plain failing your rolls. You screw up often and you screw up hard. Meanwhile, guys who aren't thieves are simply totally incapable of sneaking around. Unless the DM decides to make it a DEX check... the odds of which he then needs to compare to the thief skill percent success rate, making it appropriately lower.
--The thief "always THINKS he is being quiet". That's right. If you screw up horribly on your quite movement--like, say, by stepping on a horribly creaky plank--you don't get to be aware of this.

-Backstab: ridiculously hard to pull off.

-Use Scrolls: it has a constant, flat chance of failure, unmodified by anything. World's smartest thief and world's dumbest thief? Same chance to flub that Fireball scroll.

-Unless you're a Fighter, there's essentially NO reason not to multiclass. If you're a human, there's never a reason not to dual class (taking Fighter 1 into anything else has obvious advantages, AND it makes you more likely to survive level 1)... assuming you can. "To be dual-classed, the human must have scores of 15 or more in the prime requisites of of his first class and 17 or more in the prime requisites of any classes he switches to." Good freaking luck.

-Like I said, all of these rules read pretty much like someone half-assedly jotted down some arbitrary numbers on the spot. Speaking of which, who decided that Ancient History takes 1 NWP slot, but Herbalism and Healing take 2?

-Wizards get randomly assigned their starting spells. You know, because level 1 wizards didn't SUCK enough.

Man, I'm not even going to go through the rest. This system has no redeeming value beyond any the GM brings to the table wholesale.

I'm still torn on whether or not 3.x's sometimes useful but frequently totally broken skill system is actually better than 2E's half-assed useless non-weapon proficiency system or not. 2E's system you could at least totally ignore without it having much effect on the game.

Of course it's better. DCs are generally pretty reasonable, and you actually have some rubric that differentiates between skilled and unskilled characters. "DM handwaves it" should be a fallback option, not a default.

Multiclassing - which pretty much worked, except for the race/class thing - was eliminated in 3.x; instead they force everyone to do what AD&D called dual-classing - which has never, ever worked right - and introduced combo prestige classes to putty over the gaping holes.

Multiclassing didn't "pretty much work". Neither did dual-classing. Look, at a certain value of experience I can be a Wizard 10, or I could be a Fighter 9/Wizard 9. Forgive me for thinking the latter one is obviously vastly superior. And what if I want to stop studying wizardry and focus only on swordsmanship? That's right, I can't. Also, which races are allowed to take what multiclasses (and the fact that humans can't take any)? Those rules are stupid.

And, uh, seriously, guys, when you've got a class/level-based system that has dozens of "base" classes and hundreds of prestige classes, you're Doing Something Wrong. They also accelerated the XP curve, which not only ramped the power curve up to a ridiculous degree, it even further broke (multi-/dual-)classing.

Multiclassing is much *less* advantageous than it ever was. There's no reason a class-based system can't have lots of different classes.

There's a lot of stuff that got simplified, without any apparent understanding of why it was complicated to begin with. The ability modifiers are one of those (the new scale is simpler, but drastically increases the gap between the haves and the have-nots). The XP tables are one of those (there was a reason that it cost more to level up as a wizard than as a rogue).

A lot of the stuff was complicated because of Gygaxian tradition.
You can't possibly be having the temerity to tell me that it costs more to level up from Wizard 2 to Wizard 3 than from Fighter 2 to Fighter 3 because a level 2-3 Wizard is that much more powerful than a level 2-3 fighter. In short, the XP tables are basically totally arbitrary in 2nd edition. At least in 3rd ed. it's consistent.

And, of course, everyone harps on how difficult THAC0 was, but it's fundamentally the same mechanic as BAB, except that you subtract instead of adding. (Yeah, yeah, I know... subtraction is haaaaaaaarrrrd.) That said, I do slightly prefer the newer AC system. It's not actually any easier, but higher numbers being better is more intuitive, so it's one less thing to have to explain to new players.

THAC0 is deeply inconvenient. It's not that subtraction is hard, it's that it's counterintuitive and it slows things down there, unless you've been playing AD&D for quite a while and are totally used to it.

Feats were a nice idea, as a way to give characters some variation, get them out of the class straightjacket, but as things currently stand, there's a feat for everything, and you can't do anything without the feat, which actually reduces flexibility. In AD&D, you could come up with a bright idea, and maybe the DM would have to come up with some rules on the fly, but you could try it. 3.x has rules for it! Sadly, they almost always say that you can't do it because you don't have the right feat. (This is becoming more and more the case with more recent expansion books. It's not so bad in core.) And you can't get the right feat, because you don't get nearly enough of them, and there's a handful of feats that you have to get or your character will be severely handicapped in day-to-day use.

That is entirely not true. In AD&D, you could come up with a bright idea, and the rules wouldn't allow it at all. The DM could then handwave it. 3.x generally still allows you--you can disarm without Improved Disarm, say; it's just going to provoke the AoO &etc. There are very few things you truly need a feat for. Meanwhile, in AD&D, how likely I am to disarm someone depends completely and TOTALLY on my DM's arbitrary decision. Come *on*. I mean, I've played in freeform games, but they're set up with those expections. A rules system should cover that crap.

I hate what they did to armor. I've always disliked the complete unrealism of D&D's method of handling AC - the Armor Provides DR + Defense Bonus variants make things much better - but 3.x's Dex mod limits make things even worse.

As opposed to AD&D, where I could be a 19-DEX elf who wouldn't lose ANY of his ability to dodge by putting on full plate.

Heavier armor stops being better (and, historically, people almost always wore the heaviest armor they could get their hands on, for good reason), and there are several historically popular armor types that you'd have to be severely brain-damaged to ever even consider wearing in D&D 3.x. And they didn't even do a rational job of handing out the crippling... "chain mail" has a worse Dex modifier than a breastplate? WTF? These people really need to actually try wearing the stuff before they make rules about it.

People in D&D still generally wear the heaviest armor they can get their hands on... unless they've got a lot of Dex. Armor ACPs/max dex bonuses are no less completely arbitrary than anything in any AD&D table.

The elimination of casting times turns casters from major but manageable threats to unstoppable gods. Having casting provoke attacks of opportunity almost fixed that, except for the minor problem that no mage worth their salt can fail a defensive casting roll. Metamagic makes this worse.

Meh. That's enough ranting for tonight.

I'd rather run with 3.x casters than with the mess that is AD&D casters.
Metamagic has very little to do with defensive casting.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Ultimately, there's a reason that AD&D turned into 3.X. The original D&D did a huge variety of things, but virtually all of those things have since been done better by other games, the only real exception being the good honest dungeon bash.

Which is what 3.X was designed to do.

In all seriousness, though, if you *do* want to produce some kind of true successor to AD&D you might be better off looking at ... well ... other RPGs.

[Kurald Galain]

The system is utter crap. It has no redeeming values. I'm still enjoying the campaign, mind--but it's because it's a fun campaign; the system is hindering, not helping.

While that angry post is certainly true (well, except that the part that complains about house rules not really relevant to the actual ruleset), it is weird to see that other people make similar angry posts pointing out in detail what is so wrong with third edition. Or 3.5, or skills-and-powers, or tome-of-battle, or even 4th.

Apparently it's not possible to write an RPG without getting a group of fierce detractors.

[Kantur]

Oh, man. I've actually been in an AD&D game, recently (modified, of course, as all AD&D games are).

What 3.5 games aren't modified in some way?

The system is utter crap. It has no redeeming values. I'm still enjoying the campaign, mind--but it's because it's a fun campaign; the system is hindering, not helping.

Hmm, personally I enjoy the system just as much, possibly more than 3.5...

Very little of it is actually coherent or thought-out or related to other things. If you like that the DM has to handwave everything, I can see no reason to run this system instead of freeform or Wushu or something else that has that emphasis. Something like FATE would definitely be a lot better. Modify for grittiness at your leisure.

I can follow the book just fine, and what do you mean by 'handwave everything'? That the DM has to make up on the spot rules for something the designers wouldn't think comes up enough to merit space in the book instead of having to look up "Rules you never knew you needed" and/or the Rules Compendium to search for the relevant rules to come to the conclusion that: It isn't there, on the spot rule time/You don't have this feat you'd never heard of so no, or with massive penalties/You can do it, just follow this set of rules as concise as the grapple rule. Or that everything's mystically decided by DM whim and not dice? In which case you are playing freeform, you just haven't noticed yet.

Things that have caught my baleful eye:
-As a house rule, all mages can specialize, including multiclassed mages. Also, multiclassed Fighters can specialize and even double-specialize. This is obviously not a balanced house rule, but my double-bow-specialized Fighter/Illusionist is ridiculously good anyway. Without this house rule, I'd be just as good; being a mage, too, just gives me a tiny bit of flexibility, really (once a day, I can throw a Phantasmal Force out). The point is, double-specialized archers specifically and double-specialized fighters overall have a huge advantage.

-At level one--although due to a huge windfall of XP last session, this character in particular is gaining at least one, maybe two levels--my THAC0 is 13: 20, -2 for Dex, -3 for Double Specialization, -1 for being an elf, -1 for a Quality bow. This means I hit a reasonable AC of 5 on an 8... for 1d6+3 (specialization) + 2 (we're adding STR damage to bows built for it, but halved and rounded up. I rolled high stats, which is, of course, the key to Winning AD&D). I can do this from horseback thanks to the Riding NWP, or at two shots a round, since bows have an ROF of 2.
Compare this to a melee fighter, who has to actually get into range to trade blows (although he does even more damage once he's there). Compare this to a thief, who can't actually make any damn skill checks at ALL reliably yet. Compare this to a wizard, who gets ONE SPELL at this level. One. Spell. Two, with specialization.

That's a problem with the houserule being unbalanced, not the system. You could have a similarly powerful houserule in any system. As for one spell right now? Yeah, it sucks, but realistically, you could have a pure mage with throwing weapons or a quarterstaff still add their contributions to damage, just don't be in the front line.

-That reminds me: the "10% bonus XP for having a high stat!" is pretty much the most compact example of ABSOLUTELY AWFUL game design I can imagine. A Fighter with, say, percentile strength is already at a HUGE advantage over one who doesn't have it. Whee, let's make sure he earns even more XP, too!

This one I agree entirely with.

-I'm also running a bard; we have two characters each. I don't get XP for doing my social thing--in fact, if I remove a combat, I can deprive us of XP. What's more, my thief skills suck worse than a thief's, and the inspire ability is absolutely stupid.
To give a +1 bonus to hit, I have to inspire for THREE rounds first... and then the bonus lasts ONE ROUND at level 1. That's unutterably pointless.

That's bad DMing - if you've removed the need for combat, you've still defeated the encounter, you just found a different way to defeat it. Your thief skills are worse than a thiefs because otherwise there's little point to play a thief! Play a thief who gets some backstab and Thieves' Cant, or play a thief with spells and inspiring abilities...And yes, I agree that inspirations could've been done better, but when you start going up levels, bet it'll seem a lot better...

-The XP tables don't actually make any sense. Fighters are much, much better than wizards at low levels. Shouldn't wizards level faster at first, and then taper off? Why do bards level so fast they get a caster level or two on Wizards?

Because it's a way to try and balance the classes. Why try to balance the level 17 Fighter against the level 17 Wizard when you can just make the better classes for that level need more experience so they get their best abilities later? And, by the way, I personally find it amusing you didn't mention the druid's XP table...

-The saving throw tables are totally arbitrary, and, bizzarely, as you become a more powerful mage, your opponents get much less likely to be affected by your spells. They're just as challenging... your spells with saves just stop working.

Unfortunatly, I don't have my PHB here, but I'm pretty sure most of the higher level spells have save penalties inbuilt, spells to knock down saves and hefty problems if you fail it. And I don't find it arbitrary - Fighter, tough, bulky, muscled, good vs poisons and similar, bad vs magical effects...Rogues, decent against most things...Wizard, good vs magical effects, poor vs poisons...

-Infravision is stupid in execution. The section that warns you to BEWARE of mixing SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY with a FANTASY REALM, however, is hilarious when read out loud in a booming self-important voice.

I think it works well enough.

-"Skills" are stupid. Non-weapon proficiencies never tell you what to roll, so success is basically arbitrary; why bother having them? I can just say "my character learned astrology, tailoring, and bongcrafting because of his upbringing".

They tell you the stat and they tell you the bonus/penalty on it...I'll give you a hint, getting under the stat's the most sensible result for success.

-Opening doors is a Strength check. Lifting grates is a percentile roll. Why? Because AD&D is totally incoherent; each bit of the rules is designed arbitrarily in a near-complete void.

They're both strength checks technically. But go on, tell me how easy it is to break down a door compared to lifting a similar sized solid metal portculus...

-At 17 Strength, you have +1 to hit, +1 damage. At 19 Strength, you have +3 to hit, +7 to damage. WTF.

Exceptional strength fills in the gap nicely between the most brilliant of humans, elves, etc and the weakest of giants. Bear that in mind, 19 is a Giant's strength.

-Stats in general: the bonuses follow no coherent, sensible pattern... and you don't start getting them until unreasonably high numbers. This makes the most important part of the game rolling well on stats.

I think it models a population quite nicely, some people are better at hitting or dodging, the vast majority aren't. And it's not as punishing as 3.0/3.5 either. Darn, I got a 9 and a 8 that I have to put somewhere...Oh look, no penalties unless I take a skill related to that stat...

-System Shock and Resurrection Survival: both stupid. Both arbitrary. They're even different arbitrary numbers! Incidentally, Resurrection Survival is such a stupid idea. "You're resurrected! Now roll to NOT GO BACK TO BEING DEAD. Wow, THIS makes the game fun!
Also, a character with 3 CON has a 30% chance of surviving System Shock to a character with 18 CON's 99%. However, neither has a bonus/penalty to save vs. poison (although even lower/higher CONs give one).

You use SS/RS? Can't say my group ever has, just seems pointless to be honest. Also, you seem to say at the end that high/low Con scores don't give a modifier to save vs. poison, but then in the same sentance that they do...

-Chance to Learn Spell: this is stupid and pointless. Why bother making it even more difficult? It's like somebody decided to throw in some things just to annoy players. We dispense with this one.
Also, being really intelligent makes you immune to illusion spells of a certain level. Even though a higher-level spell producing the same illusion would still work.

Now if you used it, would it possibly make the Fighter vs Wizard XP tables a bit more balanced? The Wizard's share of the gold went on these scrolls, but he's not got all of the spells. The Fighter's went on potions, rings, armour, etc that all work fine. And yep, but then, the higher level illusion likely has more raw magical energy in it - it's not the illusion that's important, it's how powerful it is.

-Chance of Spell Failure: with a 12 Wisdom--above average!--a spellcaster still has a 5% chance of any given spell fizzling.

Because being in the, what, 40% most wise people in the realm means you should be able to tap into the weave/divine power flawlessly?

-Class restrictions and level limits: so obviously stupid that as far as I know, EVERYONE, ALWAYS ignored them. So there's no reason to play a human anymore.

That's a problem with the houserule. My group sticks to it and it works.

-Class ability minimums. Back to the design philosophy of playing what the dice tell you to play... which sucked. And good luck rolling that 17 CHA if you want to run a Paladin for some reason. Which you don't, since then you can't double specialize, which wins.

Tell that to my group's paladin...Who does the most damage out of our group round for round easily, except possibly for out machine gun mage with several castings of Magic Missile and a wand of Magic Missile. Besides, Paladin's are supposed to be rarer than other adventurers. And you want to run a Paladin? Talk to the DM about it. So long as they're reasonably, it should be a problem to get a slight fudge for the 17, or a comprimise like roll for all stats that don't have a minimum, if you get better Dex than required Str, possibly swapping them, etc.

-Ranger followers include animals. That they can't speak to. So they randomly get things following them around. "Yep, this bear just follows me around. No clue, dude."

I'm fairly sure there's some form of empathic link, but then, I've never seen a ranger used, so I can't be sure.

-Many of the racial thief skill adjustments make no sense. Also, they're way too absolutist.
-The Dexterity adjustments to thief skills are also pretty arbitrary. Also, with a 12 Dexterity, you still have a penalty to move silently. That's right, your above average dexterity still gets you penalized.

Yes, but look at the bigger picture. You don't have an opposed listen percentage with bonuses for points in MS, that has to be factored in some other other way, and that way is penalties and a slightly lower base chance/bonuses that if there was a listen check involved.

-It is basically impossible to be a thief who is not a complete and consistent screw-up, since until you're very high level you've got a ridiculous chance of just plain failing your rolls. You screw up often and you screw up hard. Meanwhile, guys who aren't thieves are simply totally incapable of sneaking around. Unless the DM decides to make it a DEX check... the odds of which he then needs to compare to the thief skill percent success rate, making it appropriately lower.
--The thief "always THINKS he is being quiet". That's right. If you screw up horribly on your quite movement--like, say, by stepping on a horribly creaky plank--you don't get to be aware of this.

Wait, actually having to use Thieves and Rangers as scouts instead of the full plate wearing Fighter? And there're still ways, items like boots/cloak of elvenkind to aid sneaking to even the clumbsiest of warriors. And if your DM has you step on a loud, squeaky floorboard and you don't get to know? That's a problem with the DM, any fair one usually has a range of acceptable failure where you don't know and the "Oops..." failures.

-Backstab: ridiculously hard to pull off.

I've never had problems getting a Backstab off unless it's a crowded combat or near a wall. Ok, I may have to give up a round to get there, but it's worth it for the bonus to hit alone in my opinion.

-Use Scrolls: it has a constant, flat chance of failure, unmodified by anything. World's smartest thief and world's dumbest thief? Same chance to flub that Fireball scroll.

But have they been trained in how to read arcane preparations, etc? Ok, it's a bit odd, but 3.5s not free of odd things either.

-Unless you're a Fighter, there's essentially NO reason not to multiclass. If you're a human, there's never a reason not to dual class (taking Fighter 1 into anything else has obvious advantages, AND it makes you more likely to survive level 1)... assuming you can. "To be dual-classed, the human must have scores of 15 or more in the prime requisites of of his first class and 17 or more in the prime requisites of any classes he switches to." Good freaking luck.

Except for possibly "I could by a pure mage, getting new, better spells quickly, or I could be a multiclass thief/mage and get the same spells more slowly, have fractionally better hit points and some thief skills, but not as many as a pure thief could have. Not to mention that for that 10% bonus, I need a 17 in both stats instead of just one..."

-Like I said, all of these rules read pretty much like someone half-assedly jotted down some arbitrary numbers on the spot. Speaking of which, who decided that Ancient History takes 1 NWP slot, but Herbalism and Healing take 2?

Considering that Healing's always useful in D&D and Ancient History isn't, I think it's perfectly fair.

-Wizards get randomly assigned their starting spells. You know, because level 1 wizards didn't SUCK enough.

Speak to the DM, but then, who said that everyone taught their apprentices from a set list? If you were taught by someone who was a specialist conjurer, why would you know any of the forbidden magics when you start out?

Man, I'm not even going to go through the rest. This system has no redeeming value beyond any the GM brings to the table wholesale.


Of course it's better. DCs are generally pretty reasonable, and you actually have some rubric that differentiates between skilled and unskilled characters. "DM handwaves it" should be a fallback option, not a default.

Until you start focusing on one skill to break it. "The dragons looks at you angrily, roaring." "Diplomacy, 57, no he's not." "Damnit..."

Multiclassing didn't "pretty much work". Neither did dual-classing. Look, at a certain value of experience I can be a Wizard 10, or I could be a Fighter 9/Wizard 9. Forgive me for thinking the latter one is obviously vastly superior. And what if I want to stop studying wizardry and focus only on swordsmanship? That's right, I can't. Also, which races are allowed to take what multiclasses (and the fact that humans can't take any)? Those rules are stupid.


Multiclassing is much *less* advantageous than it ever was. There's no reason a class-based system can't have lots of different classes.


A lot of the stuff was complicated because of Gygaxian tradition.
You can't possibly be having the temerity to tell me that it costs more to level up from Wizard 2 to Wizard 3 than from Fighter 2 to Fighter 3 because a level 2-3 Wizard is that much more powerful than a level 2-3 fighter. In short, the XP tables are basically totally arbitrary in 2nd edition. At least in 3rd ed. it's consistent.

I think it worked better. Partly because of 'arbitrary experience tables'. I can be a Thief 5/Mage 4 when the rest of my party's about 6th level. In 3.5, I'd be a mediocre thief and a poor mage when we face that CR9 creature because whether I'm taking my first level in a new class, or my sixteenth, if I'm currently level 15, I need the exact same amount of experience to get it. Who knew Fighter 1 could be as complicated as Mage 16 or Ranger 16?

THAC0 is deeply inconvenient. It's not that subtraction is hard, it's that it's counterintuitive and it slows things down there, unless you've been playing AD&D for quite a while and are totally used to it.

I'm sure if you desperatly wanted, it could be converted into a BAB-like system, but after a couple of sessions, you do get fairly quick at it. To be honest, I take about as much time to work out what AC I've hit in AD&D or 3.5

That is entirely not true. In AD&D, you could come up with a bright idea, and the rules wouldn't allow it at all. The DM could then handwave it. 3.x generally still allows you--you can disarm without Improved Disarm, say; it's just going to provoke the AoO &etc. There are very few things you truly need a feat for. Meanwhile, in AD&D, how likely I am to disarm someone depends completely and TOTALLY on my DM's arbitrary decision. Come *on*. I mean, I've played in freeform games, but they're set up with those expections. A rules system should cover that crap.

For that example it's easy, give the weapon a better AC by say 3, opponent makes a Dex check with a penalty of 1 per point/2 points of damage, failure drops it. Or go through the "To make my attack, he needs to make an attack and if he hits me then I can't". And it should, but maybe they didn't expect players to want to disarm opponents.

As opposed to AD&D, where I could be a 19-DEX elf who wouldn't lose ANY of his ability to dodge by putting on full plate.


People in D&D still generally wear the heaviest armor they can get their hands on... unless they've got a lot of Dex. Armor ACPs/max dex bonuses are no less completely arbitrary than anything in any AD&D table.


I'd rather run with 3.x casters than with the mess that is AD&D casters.
Metamagic has very little to do with defensive casting.

Yes it's a little silly, but if you get to choose where your stats are, there's normally one that's better - Thieves won't be wearing heavy armour anyway, Fighters are going to want that stat in Strength/Con, Mages Int, Clerics Wis, Paladins Cha, etc.

And to be honest, the only thing I'd like to see from 3.5 on AD&D casters is a couple of 0-Level spells, other than that, I think it's fine.

[Pronounceable]

Apparently it's not possible to write an RPG without getting a group of fierce detractors.

Unless you're planning to use the ruleset just for your own games.

Pros of ADnD:
-feels better (hard to explain, subjective, but it's there)
-different xp tables
-fixed xp for monsters (this is a bit double edged, ease of use vs flexibility)
-casting times and weapon speeds(admittedly a bit complicated)
-hardcapped stats (at 25)
-infravision (which is infinitely cooler than darkvision)
-xp gain for magic item creation (or was that a widespread houserule?)
-Planescape used it (PS applies a flat +5 awesome bonus on everything related to it, even the damned alignment system)

Pros of 3e:
-unrestricted class levels for everyone
-straightened attack numbers
-saves
-opposed skill checks
-multiclassing
-aoos
-fixed initiative order

Cons of everything DnD:
-alignment system
-elf subtypes
-gnomes
-dragons (how many motherbleeping types of the damned lizards are there?)
-dungeons (I hate dungeoncrawling. I hate, I hate I HATE dungeoncrawling)
-vancian spell slots (easy but eww...)

[Matthew]

Oh, man. I've actually been in an AD&D game, recently (modified, of course, as all AD&D games are).

The system is utter crap. It has no redeeming values. I'm still enjoying the campaign, mind--but it's because it's a fun campaign; the system is hindering, not helping.

*stuff*

Hah, hah. Sounds like you're having a lot of the problems that led to the creation of D20. Honestly, the majority of that post I disagree rather strongly with (though some points I agree with), but there's far too much there to respond to in one go.

I'll take a couple of points on:

Weapon Specialisation: Widely known to have the potential to break the game (especially in conjunction with other Optional Rules, such as Blade Singing Fighting Style Specialisation and Two Weapon Fighting Style Specialisation); DMs should think very carefully before including it and in what form.

Non Weapon Proficiencies: Well known for being a poor half way house between no skill system ("I can cook") and a skill system ("I have Cook +6"). I wouldn't use them unless I was also using the Character Point System and, even then, I would end up House Ruling the hell out of them.

Thief Skills: To put it simply, your DM is probably using them wrong. Thief Skills have great potential to cause confusion, as they are sometimes thought to be synonymous with ordinary task resolution [i.e. Move Silently is not the same thing as 'sneaking' nor Hide in Shadows the same thing as 'hiding'].

Task Resolution: I brought this up with David Cook over on Dragonsfoot the other day. David Cook's Question and Answer Thread on Dragonsfoot. Hand waving is not quite the same thing as having an open task resolution system.

Saving Throws: Opponents don't get better at resisting Wizard Spells as the Wizard gets higher level. Opponents get better at resisting magic as they get higher level.

[DeathQuaker]

What I liked:

- Slightly faster combat, IF people knew what they were doing
- The Bard class. I like the 3x version too, but I liked the sort of jack of all trades blend of rogue and wizard a little more.
- Weapon specialization
- More flexibility with stunts (i.e., no rigid rules for how something like a "bull rush" should work), but only if you had a GM that was good at coming up with how to implement those sort of things. If you didn't, then having less of a concrete system for how to handle various combat maneuvers could quickly devolve into an argument, or a GM just saying, "No, you can't do that. Just hit it with your sword."
- Some really, really nice Forgotten Realms supplements, and everything Planescape.

What I disliked (I acknowledge some of these things were eliminated via house rules and updates, but these were in core and therefore the official rules, so I include them):

- Race restrictions regarding dual class and multiclass
- The utter brokenness you could achieve with dual classing
- The utter suck you could achieve with multiclassing
- Race restrictions for classes
- "Prime requisites" especially when doing ability generation by the book
- Racial level caps--and by extension, the fact that ultimately, by "core," playing anything but a human ultimately sucked
- Calculating f****** THAC0. I never want to play a game where I need a "cheat sheet" for my to-hit rolls again.
- The extreme limitedness of secondary skills and nonweapon proficiencies, especially when you played with a DM who said, "If you don't have the proficiency, you can't do it. You can't even make an ability check, no."
- The general inconsistency of the core mechanic--you needed to roll high for some things, low for others. Increased the learning curve of the game unnecessarily. Veteran players don't worry about it, but I remember it was frustrating when learning how to play.
- The fact that casting "Teleport" comes with a chance of death. (Admittedly, I hold a special grudge against this because this happened to me. When we were in the middle of fighting the Tarrasque.)
- The fact that "Haste" ages you.
- Generally, any other bizarre, life-threatening side-effect of casting a simple spell, and most save-or-suck situations, which I seemed to encounter far more often while playing AD&D than playing D&D 3.x
- By the book, female characters couldn't have an 18 strength.
- The fact that any stat under 16 completely sucked, even though 16 was theoretically supposed to be significantly above human average (and when you had a Str of 16 and a party member had 18/00 strength, and people considered you the "weak" and "useless" member of the party because of it)
- Too much left to the DM's judgement. AD&D might be great if you have a really, really good, flexible and creative GM. It absolutely sucks if you don't.

That's all I can think of for now.

[hamlet]

Oh, man. I've actually been in an AD&D game, recently (modified, of course, as all AD&D games are).

The system is utter crap. It has no redeeming values. I'm still enjoying the campaign, mind--but it's because it's a fun campaign; the system is hindering, not helping.

<snip a whole lot of bunk>

Wow, that post was astonishing. You managed to misunderstand, misinterpret, or just flat out not bother to read most of the AD&D system.

It looks as if you've managed to distill every misconception about AD&D into a single post. I'd go through point by point and argue them all, but somebody's already done that and it seems you've already decided to hate the system unreasonably anyway.

EDIT: On second thought, I realize that this post is pretty harsh. I'll add this to say that no personal offense is intended. My post was merely intended to express my amusement at what I perceive to be stubborn and willfull non-comprehension.

[LibraryOgre]

Very little of it is actually coherent or thought-out or related to other things.

This is false. Unfortunately, they consistently fell between making things simulationist and gamist, and didn't really satisfy either group's requirement.

-As a house rule, all mages can specialize, including multiclassed mages. Also, multiclassed Fighters can specialize and even double-specialize. This is obviously not a balanced house rule

And irrelevant. If you're going to attack AD&D, attack it on its own merits.

The point is, double-specialized archers specifically and double-specialized fighters overall have a huge advantage.

Which, in 2nd edition, was an advantage that was only open to single classed fighters. Multi-classed fighters couldn't have it. Other warriors couldn't have it. That your group broke it with a house rule isn't the fault of the game designers.

-At level one--although due to a huge windfall of XP last session, this character in particular is gaining at least one, maybe two levels

He's gaining one. If he's gaining two, your DM is again house-ruling outside the scope of the RAW, and you're blaming the RAW for the DM.

my THAC0 is 13: 20, -2 for Dex, -3 for Double Specialization, -1 for being an elf, -1 for a Quality bow. This means I hit a reasonable AC of 5 on an 8... for 1d6+3 (specialization) + 2 (we're adding STR damage to bows built for it, but halved and rounded up.

I'll point out that not only did you roll high stats, but you have phenomenal gold for 1st level, as well. A strength bow is prohibitively expensive (though, look, you're using a house rule!), and you seem to have a bow which adds additional strike bonuses, which is two to five times as expensive (from a note in the DMG; I'll give you the page number when I get home).

I rolled high stats, which is, of course, the key to Winning AD&D).

It isn't the key to winning 3.x?

-That reminds me: the "10% bonus XP for having a high stat!" is pretty much the most compact example of ABSOLUTELY AWFUL game design I can imagine. A Fighter with, say, percentile strength is already at a HUGE advantage over one who doesn't have it. Whee, let's make sure he earns even more XP, too!

This was an attempt at simulationism; people with higher stats would find their jobs easier to learn, and thus would advance faster. Obviously, the idea that they'd do better at them, and thus advance faster didn't follow.

-I'm also running a bard; we have two characters each. I don't get XP for doing my social thing--in fact, if I remove a combat, I can deprive us of XP. What's more, my thief skills suck worse than a thief's, and the inspire ability is absolutely stupid.
To give a +1 bonus to hit, I have to inspire for THREE rounds first... and then the bonus lasts ONE ROUND at level 1. That's unutterably pointless.

Your DM failed to read the rules properly. I'll comment more on this when I get home. However, I'll point out that AD&D originally (pre-Combat and Tactics) had 1 minute rounds, meaning you had to inspire for about 3 minutes... a short speech, or sing a song. That inspiration, IIRC, lasted for one TURN, which was ten minutes. In 3.5, there are 6 second rounds, and it requires a standard action to inspire... meaning it requires only a few seconds to inspire people to courage, competence, or heroics.

An AD&D bard is Henry V, reciting "We few, we merry few, we band of brothers." A 3.x bard is Ray Stantz saying "Get 'er!"

-The XP tables don't actually make any sense. Fighters are much, much better than wizards at low levels. Shouldn't wizards level faster at first, and then taper off? Why do bards level so fast they get a caster level or two on Wizards?

Why would wizards learn faster than fighters? They have more difficult things to learn at first, whereas fighters will eventually reach a plateau where it is difficult to learn more.

-The saving throw tables are totally arbitrary, and, bizzarely, as you become a more powerful mage, your opponents get much less likely to be affected by your spells. They're just as challenging... your spells with saves just stop working.

Read the rationale behind saving throws in the 1st edition DMG. It was never about the wizard.

-Infravision is stupid in execution. The section that warns you to BEWARE of mixing SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY with a FANTASY REALM, however, is hilarious when read out loud in a booming self-important voice.

There are two versions of infravision. The optional version is the gradients of heat. The standard is "see in the dark."

-"Skills" are stupid. Non-weapon proficiencies never tell you what to roll, so success is basically arbitrary; why bother having them? I can just say "my character learned astrology, tailoring, and bongcrafting because of his upbringing".

You are wrong, but I am at work, so I'll address this when I get home.

-Opening doors is a Strength check. Lifting grates is a percentile roll. Why? Because AD&D is totally incoherent; each bit of the rules is designed arbitrarily in a near-complete void.

Maybe because it's easier to open a stuck door than it is to bend a bar or lift a gate, and thus the probabilities reflect that?

-At 17 Strength, you have +1 to hit, +1 damage. At 19 Strength, you have +3 to hit, +7 to damage. WTF.

Because of the intervening percentile strength, and the feeling that strength didn't add as much to your chance to hit as it did to your ability to cause damage. Strength always, except at 17, added more to damage than it did to hit.

Ok, I have to get to work. I'll address the rest of this, either at lunch or when I get home. You make some very flawed assumptions about the game that seem to be based on house rules and an incomplete understanding of the rationales behind the mechanics. I suggest reading the 1st edition DMG; it can be a slog, but it does explain a lot of the rationales.

[its_all_ogre]

i'm with reel on love.
i'm not willing to go into it all again though as i bore quickly of following the thread to respond to those who disagree.
think i have been involved in two of these threads other the time i have been on these forum boards.

[AtomicKitKat]

Round to round Initiative bogs down combat, but I liked it. Made for a more organic fight.

[Matthew]

What I liked:

- Slightly faster combat, IF people knew what they were doing
- The Bard class. I like the 3x version too, but I liked the sort of jack of all trades blend of rogue and wizard a little more.
- More flexibility with stunts (i.e., no rigid rules for how something like a "bull rush" should work), but only if you had a GM that was good at coming up with how to implement those sort of things. If you didn't, then having less of a concrete system for how to handle various combat maneuvers could quickly devolve into an argument, or a GM just saying, "No, you can't do that. Just hit it with your sword."
- Some really, really nice Forgotten Realms supplements, and everything Planescape.

I agree.

- Weapon specialization

I disagree.

What I disliked (I acknowledge some of these things were eliminated via house rules and updates, but these were in core and therefore the official rules, so I include them):

- Race restrictions regarding dual class and multiclass
- The utter brokenness you could achieve with dual classing
- The utter suck you could achieve with multiclassing
- Race restrictions for classes
- "Prime requisites" especially when doing ability generation by the book
- Racial level caps--and by extension, the fact that ultimately, by "core," playing anything but a human ultimately sucked
- Calculating f****** THAC0. I never want to play a game where I need a "cheat sheet" for my to-hit rolls again.
- The extreme limitedness of secondary skills and nonweapon proficiencies, especially when you played with a DM who said, "If you don't have the proficiency, you can't do it. You can't even make an ability check, no."
- The fact that casting "Teleport" comes with a chance of death. (Admittedly, I hold a special grudge against this because this happened to me. When we were in the middle of fighting the Tarrasque.)
- The fact that "Haste" ages you.
- Generally, any other bizarre, life-threatening side-effect of casting a simple spell, and most save-or-suck situations, which I seemed to encounter far more often while playing AD&D than playing D&D 3.x
- By the book, female characters couldn't have an 18 strength.
- The fact that any stat under 16 completely sucked, even though 16 was theoretically supposed to be significantly above human average (and when you had a Str of 16 and a party member had 18/00 strength, and people considered you the "weak" and "useless" member of the party because of it)

Broadly, I agree.

- The general inconsistency of the core mechanic--you needed to roll high for some things, low for others. Increased the learning curve of the game unnecessarily. Veteran players don't worry about it, but I remember it was frustrating when learning how to play.

Heh, heh. There was no real core mechanic in AD&D, just the idea that tasks with a chance of failure should use dice to model the probability.

- Too much left to the DM's judgement. AD&D might be great if you have a really, really good, flexible and creative GM. It absolutely sucks if you don't.

I think that's putting things too strongly. A good game experience did heavily rely on having a skilled DM. On the other hand, when everyone is new to the game (including the DM) it doesn't seem to matter.

Given the choice, I probably wouldn't play in any RPG with an unskilled DM, unless it was with a view to seeing him improve!

Wow, that post was astonishing. You managed to misunderstand, misinterpret, or just flat out not bother to read most of the AD&D system.

It looks as if you've managed to distill every misconception about AD&D into a single post. I'd go through point by point and argue them all, but somebody's already done that and it seems you've already decided to hate the system unreasonably anyway.

EDIT: On second thought, I realize that this post is pretty harsh. I'll add this to say that no personal offense is intended. My post was merely intended to express my amusement at what I perceive to be stubborn and willfull non-comprehension.

Indeed, let's try and keep our heads. It's easy to respond to an inflammatory post (whether intentional or not) in kind, which is of course self perpetuating.

It is not like the AD&D rules are well edited, so many misunderstandings are the result of poor layout and the fact that fully understanding the AD&D 2e Core Rules almost necessitates familiarity with the 1e AD&D Core Books!

More importantly, we should recognise that AD&D is in no way a complete or systematic rule set and so will always fail to meet that criteria if set up as the standard of 'good'.

i'm not willing to go into it all again though as i bore quickly of following the thread to respond to those who disagree.
think i have been involved in two of these threads other the time i have been on these forum boards.

More than that, I would say. I didn't realise it was boredom that stopped you responding. A pity, because, as I recall, the counters to your points were pretty devastating.

[Zincorium]

Things about 2nd Edition that bugged the heck out of me:

-The myriad saving throws. If there was some consistent reason why certain things were one save and other things were different saves, I could see this as a pro, but 'incoherent' is a good term.

-Weapon types vs. armor types. No one I know actually used this rule in game, it slowed things down way too much and didn't improve the game at all.

-Magic item creation rules. WTF. Cleric item creation was stupidly easy if you were in your diety's good graces, for wizards it was essentially 'have your DM make something up'. Thank you TSR, for telling me in a page and a half long section that I need to make something up out of thin air. If I'm looking in a section on creating magic items, maybe it's because I'd like some rules, eh?

-The high ability score bonus XP. Enough has been said on this one.

-Kits. Oh man. Either they were broken to the point of no return or they simply had no point. Admittedly, this was an optional thing, but even the bad prestige classes in 3rd ed aren't that extreme, especially as you don't get everything in a prestige class at 1st level.

-Unless you were willing to make up 80% or more of the rules, the game was nearly unplayable. A mediocre DM could ruin a game without trying.


Things I did like:

-Settings were pretty much entirely fluff, something like planescape is impossible to nail down in crunch.

Unfortunately, that's about it. Everything else is just happy memories.

[Dan_Hemmens]

-Unless you were willing to make up 80% or more of the rules, the game was nearly unplayable. A mediocre DM could ruin a game without trying.

A mediocre DM can ruin *any* game without trying.

I'd rather have to make up 80% of the rules than have a game which won't let me do anything there aren't rules for.

[Zincorium]

A mediocre DM can ruin *any* game without trying.

A mediocre (not bad, not good, just mediocre) DM can run a 3.x game in a way that's still relatively fun.

I'd rather have to make up 80% of the rules than have a game which won't let me do anything there aren't rules for.

What is it with people who are willing to change rules in one edition but not in others?

Its the same deal. Third edition just gives you something to work with, a starting point if you will. Second edition didn't even have guidelines for many things.

[Matthew]

A mediocre (not bad, not good, just mediocre) DM can run a 3.x game in a way that's still relatively fun.

Lots of issues there (such as whether good DMing is an acquired skill, how one acquires it, whether D20 is condusive to acquiring it, whether it needs to be, what constitutes a good or bad DM, etc...). It is true that D20 runs along pretty nicely by itself, but I think that is pretty much the issue (and the root of the "it's too much like a video game" complaint).

What is it with people who are willing to change rules in one edition but not in others?

Its the same deal. Third edition just gives you something to work with, a starting point if you will. Second edition didn't even have guidelines for many things.

True, of course. For me, though, it's the difference in expectation and emphasis. D20 is supposed to work straight out of the box, whilst AD&D was put together with the expectation that it would be used as a tool kit. If you ever owned First Quest, you might know what AD&D out of the box looks like (pretty good, in all honesty).

[Kurald Galain]

A mediocre (not bad, not good, just mediocre) DM can run a 3.x game in a way that's still relatively fun.

You're using two separate definitions of "mediocre" here. It is simply false that, for the same "level" of DM skill, any 3E game will automatically be better than any 2E game.

Since "mediocre" means "average", and the average group playing whatever game you think of is having fun or they wouldn't be playing that, it follows that any half-way popular game can be played by "mediocre" players (and DMs) and still be fun.

Bad DMs, on the other hand, can ruin any system, any setting. That's what makes them bad, and that's their fault, not the setting's.

[its_all_ogre]

@ matthew

i typically did read the responses but it got to the point of silliness.
i liked playing it when i first started.
then i dm'd and found that a lot of the 'rules' were not in fact rules at all. lacking of so many things i regard as essential (magic item creation in the 3 necessary books-i don't much care about splatbooks) ruined it for me.

3.x has those rules.

plus i prefer games with clear concise rules that state what you can do so that players can design their characters with that in mind. 2nd ed just did not have that.

2nd ed games could be good with a good dm. but an ok dm can run 3.x fine purely because there are actual rules in place and not 'make it up' guidelines, you could point to the dm the section of move silently for example. rather than no rules for a fighter sneaking along leaving a dm to just let enemies hear them etc.

end of the day some people like some things and others like different things.

i'm a regular gym goer and some of my friends try it and don;t like it. when i ask why they explain all their reasons and i tell them all sorts of solutions to the issues they're having and they try them and it doesn't work out.
end of the day i like it and they don't, that's life end of the day

[Dan_Hemmens]

A mediocre (not bad, not good, just mediocre) DM can run a 3.x game in a way that's still relatively fun.

The key word here is "relatively".

What is it with people who are willing to change rules in one edition but not in others?

Its the same deal. Third edition just gives you something to work with, a starting point if you will. Second edition didn't even have guidelines for many things.

The point is that there is a big, important difference between adjudicating something not covered by the rules, and actively changing something that *is* covered by the rules.

[Matthew]

*stuff*

I agree with that. After all, diverse preferences are the reason so many different, but essentially similar, RPGs exist.

On the other hand, misinformed or absolute statements are guarenteed to cause considerable consternation (and inflammation!), which I think we can see in action above.

[hamlet]

Indeed, let's try and keep our heads. It's easy to respond to an inflammatory post (whether intentional or not) in kind, which is of course self perpetuating.

It is not like the AD&D rules are well edited, so many misunderstandings are the result of poor layout and the fact that fully understanding the AD&D 2e Core Rules almost necessitates familiarity with the 1e AD&D Core Books!

More importantly, we should recognise that AD&D is in no way a complete or systematic rule set and so will always fail to meet that criteria if set up as the standard of 'good'.

You know, I realized that what I said was harsh and I'll try to soften it, but it's posts like Reel On Love's that really really get my ire up. It's broad opinion based on shoddy or non-existant comprehension presented as fact that just makes me see red. I deal with it every day, all day at work, and then I cruise this board where I try to relax and see it all the time.

It actually took me a good while before I could respond to that post with something other than a whole lot of four letter words.

Oh, I'll never say that the AD&D rules were well edited, but then again, I'll never say the same about 3.x rules. And you're right, the fact that I usually have to be familiar with 1st edition, or be willing to go from the intent to the execution is a detractor at times, but then again, that's something I like: that the intent is stronger than the written execution.

And I would love to know what your issue is with non-weapon proficiencies. I've heard that one so often, and no actual explination of it, that I often suspect that it's just a mindless tautology, but to hear you repeat it . . .

[Matthew]

Heh, I can't say my initial thoughts were very generous either.

And I would love to know what your issue is with non-weapon proficiencies. I've heard that one so often, and no actual explination of it, that I often suspect that it's just a mindless tautology, but to hear you repeat it . . .

Two reasons, really, neither of which have much to do with the actual mechanic itself, which I have defended on many occasions.

1) Player Character Non Weapon Proficiency Acquisition Rate: To be frank, this sucks. I hate that my options as to what a character can do are limited by an arbitrary number of slots, that I am tempted to take a Kit to pick up the slack and that my next slot won't appear until Level X. It's basically the same thing that I hate about the D20 Feat System. It does provide a solid reason to invest in Intelligence for more initial slots, but that's about it. This also applies to Weapon Proficiency Slots, of course.

2) Defined Limitations: In telling me what my Character can do when he has Proficiency X, the Non Weapon Proficiency System also tells me what he cannot do without it, which rubs me the wrong way. As soon as you create a 'Ride' skill you have Player Characters falling off horses (I know that's not the way the Ride Proficiency was supposed to work, but it was in practice the way it was often implemented). I want to be free to decide what skills a given character possesses and for him to acquire new ones as a result of in game actions. Again, this is basically the same problem that I have with the D20 Feat System.

[hamlet]

Heh, I can't say my initial thoughts were very generous either.


Two reasons, really, neither of which have much to do with the actual mechanic itself, which I have defended on many occasions.

1) Player Character Non Weapon Proficiency Acquisition Rate: To be frank, this sucks. I hate that my options as to what a character can do are limited by an arbitrary number of slots, that I am tempted to take a Kit to pick up the slack and that my next slot won't appear until Level X. It's basically the same thing that I hate about the D20 Feat System. It does provide a solid reason to invest in Intelligence for more initial slots, but that's about it. This also applies to Weapon Proficiency Slots, of course.

2) Defined Limitations: In telling me what my Character can do when he has Proficiency X, the Non Weapon Proficiency System also tells me what he cannot do without it, which rubs me the wrong way. As soon as you create a 'Ride' skill you have Player Characters falling off horses (I know that's not the way the Ride Proficiency was supposed to work, but it was in practice the way it was often implemented). I want to be free to decide what skills a given character possesses and for him to acquire new ones as a result of in game actions. Again, this is basically the same problem that I have with the D20 Feat System.

I've never had a problem with this ever. Either as a player or DM.

I'll admit to occasionally bemoaning a lack of slots to devote to language skills, but that's only very occasionaly and can be solved with a simple patch of "everybody knows x number of extra languages."

Add on top of that that I've NEVER seen them as restrictive in the slightest. Have never told a player (or been told as a player) that just because my character doesn't have "Rope Use" he can't tie a basic knot. However, I have said that without it, you can't tie complicated knots or creat rigging or something complicated.

Having the non-weapon proficiency always meant only one thing to me and to everybody I've gamed with over more than a few sessions: that the character is skilled enough at that proficiency to make his living with it. Having the "Weaponsmithing" proficiency means that the guy can earn a living making weapons. Not having it means that you never learned, or were never taught the skills that coincide with that proficiency, but given a bit of time, some luck, and a fair amount of swearing, you could fake it (i.e., you might be able to clumsily repair the chain on your flail, or reattach the crossguards on your sword. Someone with the carpentry proficinecy is a master carpenter, but the guy without the proficiency can still muster up enough native talen to build himself your basic peasant hovel, or throw together a makeshift scaffold.

[Matthew]

Heh. Don't get me wrong, I understand that point of view, but then why not just use Secondary Skills or simply assume characters have whatever skills seem appropriate and ignore the whole Proficiency issue? [i.e. "Jeros is a skilled carpenter," as opposed to "Jeros has devoted x slots to the carpenting proficiency."]

Mind, I should probably point out that I don't think the D20 skill system is any better (probably even worse).