AD&D - a general overvue has been provided, and then some

[xPANCAKEx]

i've only ever played 3.x

i was wondering if you would all be so kind to explain to me what AD&D was like in comparison? i've often heard of older players with a preference for it, so i'd love to known how they match up

i know this is all a bit vague and could spiral into a long thread, but any input would be appreciated, or even any links to places already covering the topic

[Killersquid]

I know Nagora still plays AD&D, I'd ask him.

[Tormsskull]

i was wondering if you would all be so kind to explain to me what AD&D was like in comparison? i've often heard of older players with a preference for it, so i'd love to known how they match up

I'm biased towards AD&D so take all of this with a grain of salt.

AD&D was much more open towards DM interpretation. The game was designed around "these are the rules, but the DM has the final say". Casters were a lot weaker in comparison to 3ed, specifically at low levels.

All of the classes did not level up at the same time, each class had a different amount of exp that it took to advance. Demi-humans (elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes) could only advance so far in a character class. Halfling fighters were extremely limited to what level they could achieve, for example.

AD&D was not based around a battlemap, though some people use one. Without a battlemap combat tends too move a lot faster, but it requires a good imagination and good descriptions from the DM to pull off.

As far as links, google AD&D and I am sure you will find tons.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I'm Playing in an ad&d game base off "the sword" series of books(no idea the author)

Best thing is always multi class if you can. And really humans are no where near as good as they are in 3.x

I like both games pritty much the same.. in my opinion ad&d required more thinking then 3.x because it is Highly more lethal even with friendly gms.

Also Face matters... can't tell you how many times rogues jump us from the back and nearly kill us cuz of damn facing... your not puddy like in 3.x...

and Torm is correct wizards get far less spells then in 3.x but there spells are slightly better in my opinion... you can do more with them.

Try to start off higher then lvl 1 or you'll die... (liek i said realy leathal)..

Races are different to Dwarves and gnomes have 20% spell resistance :) Damn wand won't work drop... pick up... damn it... drop... pick up....


Also one thing thats pritty cool is Warriors can use scrolls.

[Blanks]

I played AD&D second edition for something like 10 years. Here are my view of the main differences between AD&D and 3,5 DnD:

Squishy casters:
Even into the high levels, it took a fighter 1-2 rounds to kill him. Casters were awesome, but were real glasscanons. Combined with spells getting ruined if hit in combat (no save or anything), it meant that melee was almost certain death.

Boring fighters.
You more or less just hacked away at each other untill someone was out of HP. Which was really quick with highlevel fighters. A level 10 fighter had something like 60 HP.

Builds didn't exist
You were a fighter. Perhaps with weapon proficiency in bow. But as there were no feats, you really just tried stuff and did'nt need to "make a build" from level 1-20.

Those were some highlights. ask away if you got any specific questions.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I played AD&D second edition for something like 10 years. Here are my view of the main differences between AD&D and 3,5 DnD:

Squishy casters:
Even into the high levels, it took a fighter 1-2 rounds to kill him. Casters were awesome, but were real glasscanons. Combined with spells getting ruined if hit in combat (no save or anything), it meant that melee was almost certain death.

Boring fighters.
You more or less just hacked away at each other untill someone was out of HP. Which was really quick with highlevel fighters. A level 10 fighter had something like 60 HP.

Builds didn't exist
You were a fighter. Perhaps with weapon proficiency in bow. But as there were no feats, you really just tried stuff and did'nt need to "make a build" from level 1-20.

Those were some highlights. ask away if you got any specific questions.

um kits sir?

Kits made every thing more interesting... although i must admit playing a strait class was kinda dumb any way ... ya you progress faster but it gets boring like he said...

Although i have to disagree with there where no builds...
I currently play a halfing warrior scout/priest of the harvist mystic

quite and interesting build...

much like 3.5 the splat books made the game better.

[Charity]

i've only ever played 3.x

i was wondering if you would all be so kind to explain to me what AD&D was like in comparison? i've often heard of older players with a preference for it, so i'd love to known how they match up

i know this is all a bit vague and could spiral into a long thread, but any input would be appreciated, or even any links to places already covering the topic

In before Matt or Nagora... what a result

AD&D was much more class based than 3.x, your class defined what you could do. There were no feats to be had, and precious little in the way of skills.
Multiclassing was done at 1st level for demi-humans (everything but humans) and you advanced both classes simultaniously splitting your xp between them and averaging the HP. Humans did it differently in an even more abusable fashion. Multiclassing without level restrictions was a far more powerful choice for your character generally speaking.

If you are not using weapon specialisation fighters tended to be pretty unremarkable if you do use weapon spec, you can get some broken stuff comming up. Magic users start off very weak but soon rise to the top in the power stakes.
Monks are very poor early on but near the end of their career they are very potent.

The armour class works backwards from 10 to -10 at the pinnacle.
The stat bonuses are not linear nor are they the same for each stat
a 17 Str netts you +1 to hit and Damage, a 17 Dex gives you +3 to hit and -3 to your AC (a good thing). You also get different bonuses for high end stats dependant on your class whether you are a Fighter class (or subclass) or not.

As it goes, AD&D is where I cut my RPG teeth, it is quite usable and once you are used to it's quirks it runs pretty smooth.

[bosssmiley]

In before Matt or Nagora... what a result

Ditto. Are they unwell?

AD&D. Well, for starters disregard everything you know about a single integrated resolution system from 3E. The general mechanics of AD&D worked on a non-scaling "lower target to beat = better" system. THAC0 (your Attack Bonus), Saves, your AC; all were actually better the lower they were.

There were much fewer bonus types in AD&D (so 1d8+7 damage was actually respectable damage for a mid-level fighter), Ability Checks actually mattered, skills were known as 'non-weapon proficiencies', feats didn't exist, meta-magic didn't really exist until FR started writing up meta-spells during the 2nd Ed. era, you stopped gaining Hit Dice at about 9th level (the same time you started to gain ablative armour in the form of armies of followers), there were separate experience and levelling paths for each class, and multi-classing rules made *no* sense.

Stat blocks? Try a single typed line long for most monsters & NPCs.

You could (if you wanted) spend hours arguing over the ambiguous wording of rules and spell descriptions, or you could just play fast-and-loose with only the slackest interpretation of only the most basic rules in use.

OSRIC - one of the retro-clone versions of AD&D that are doing the rounds recently.
Grognardia - the blog that wants you off its lawn. The author considers Dragonlance (!) the beginning of the end.

[Jayabalard]

I'm biased towards AD&D so take all of this with a grain of salt.
AD&D was much more open towards DM interpretation. The game was designed around "these are the rules, but the DM has the final say". Casters were a lot weaker in comparison to 3ed, specifically at low levels.

Ditto here, and I agree completly; in AD&D you really need a GM who's going to make rulings on the fly, rather than one that just rules based on the RAW.

[hamlet]

D&D 3.x and 4e are a rules set. You can, if you wish, modify or alter the rules as you see fit, but the rules are pretty much "complete out of the box" and cover just about anything you will run into.

AD&D is a tool kit. You are required to enhance, alter, chuck out, ignore, or selectively apply the rules according to the general dictum of common sense. You WILL encounter things not specifically called out for in the rules and will be required to come to some kind of agreement with the DM about how to resolve it. The rules are, for the most part, suggestions and not hard and fast.

That's the real difference.

[Morandir Nailo]

I'd add that the older versions of the game place a higher emphasis on exploration, DM-player interaction, resource management, and the acquisition of treasure. Back in the day you got XP for every GP you found, which meant that you'd get far more XP from taking something's stuff than from killing it. Add in wandering monster tables, and you get a situation where being sneaky and clever is rewarded more than charging in, sword held high. Combat was lethal, and consumed valuable, finite resources; thus it was a better idea to avoid most combats unless there was treasure involved.

Game elements are meant to challenge the players, not the PCs; with no skills, everything non-combat was roleplayed; you didn't just make a search check, you described to the DM what you were doing and s/he let you know the result. The game was all about exploring the environment, and encountering new, Weird Things.

There's a different set of influences, as well. The old versions really have a gritty, Sword & Sorcery feel to them; they're influenced by the literary tradition that includes John Carter, Cugel the Clever, Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, the Cthulhu Mythos, etc. Whereas the 3.x/4e (especially 4e) are much more cinematic and action-adventure oriented.

As others have stated, the older editions are "rules-lite;" most of what happens in the game is determined by DM rulings, rather than referencing "The RAW." This is a blessing and a curse; on the one hand, there's a real emphasis on creating things on your own, without constantly worrying about the intent of the designers (or that modern Bugaboo, "balance"). OTOH, a bad DM can make for a horrible game.

I could go on, but if you're really interested in learning more about AD&D (or my preferred version, Classic aka Basic D&D, or the grand-daddy of them all, OD&D) I'd recommend checking out a few sites such as:

www.rpg.net - The D&D forum is for discussion of all editions, but there's quite a bit of discussion about "old-school" gaming going on right now, and you can learn a lot. One of the guys who played in the original Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns is a regular here.

www.dragonsfoot.org - A site devoted entirely to pre-3e D&D. I haven't noticed it myself, but the site has a bit of a reputation for being a bit hostile to those who enjoy WotC's versions of the game (they generally refer to 3e as TETSNBN, "The Edition That Shall Not Be Named"). I personally find the Classic D&D forum to be very interesting. Several of the authors of the older editions frequent here.

Happy delving!

Mor

[Covered In Bees]

It's pretty bad, really. It's a game that predated modern game design. The rules are very... slapped together?... and feel very random or arbitrary in a lot of places. They're also unnecessarily complicated. They enshrine the dice over everything else (lots of random tables, default character generation is 3d6 and you *can't* swap the stats around, rolling a 17 or an 18 rewards you quite disproportionately over and over).

For the most part, people who still play AD&D do so out of a combination of familiarity and nostalgia, as well as "grognardly" views on how the game should be (high rate of chance-based lethality, for example).

For the vast majority of gamers, there is literally nothing worthwhile about AD&D. It's not even a rules-light game, if 3.x is too crunch-heavy for your tastes.


Morandir: let's not try to pretend that AD&D is based on the tradition of Conan. In AD&D, Conan would fail his pickpocketing check (or would he even be able to make one, not being a Thief? Let's say he's dual-classed) and would promptly be cut down by the guards. John Carter is a pulp hero--AD&D doesn't do pulp, either. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser... closer, but still not really.

[hamlet]

It's pretty bad, really. It's a game that predated modern game design. The rules are very... slapped together?... and feel very random or arbitrary in a lot of places. They're also unnecessarily complicated. They enshrine the dice over everything else (lots of random tables, default character generation is 3d6 and you *can't* swap the stats around, rolling a 17 or an 18 rewards you quite disproportionately over and over).

For the most part, people who still play AD&D do so out of a combination of familiarity and nostalgia, as well as "grognardly" views on how the game should be (high rate of chance-based lethality, for example).

For the vast majority of gamers, there is literally nothing worthwhile about AD&D. It's not even a rules-light game, if 3.x is too crunch-heavy for your tastes.


Morandir: let's not try to pretend that AD&D is based on the tradition of Conan. In AD&D, Conan would fail his pickpocketing check (or would he even be able to make one, not being a Thief? Let's say he's dual-classed) and would promptly be cut down by the guards. John Carter is a pulp hero--AD&D doesn't do pulp, either. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser... closer, but still not really.

Right . . .

And 3.x is nothing more than a twinkfest min-maxer's paradise with no redeaming values whatsoever for real roleplaying.

[TMZ_Cinoros]

Personally, I love AD&D. Of course, it is extremely primitive and I have an amazing DM who has been playing since the 70's. He has spent countless hours creating a world (he has over 200 pages of documents on his computer, specifying locations, custom items, custom monsters, maps, special rules, npcs, anything you can think of), so my experience isn't typical.

AD&D was much more open towards DM interpretation. The game was designed around "these are the rules, but the DM has the final say". Casters were a lot weaker in comparison to 3ed, specifically at low levels.

I agree. Around the time of 3rd edition, the entire attitude of D&D changed a lot. WotC did a lot to standardize game play for 3rd edition (which it took even further in 4th edition). My DM doesn't really allow splatbooks from 2nd edition, since his custom world wouldn't permit a lot of the material, but as far as I can tell, splat books in 2nd edition were more along the lines of options.

Now, don't get me wrong. In 3rd edition, the DM's could disallow any material they want. But as far as I can tell, the splatbooks in 3rd edition were automatically accepted, rather than being things the DM would allow. The attitude in 3rd edition is that WotC has laid down the rules, and those rules will be followed, rather than how in 2nd edition the rules for each DM were completely different.

Try to start off higher then lvl 1 or you'll die... (liek i said realy leathal)..

Another option is to have really big parties. My DM absolutely LOVES the early levels, where everyone is mortal. You actually have to EARN your reputation and successes. He also loves tactical battles. So, every player has two player characters, and we have a huge slew of hired NPCs. Our party size is something like 20. On our first campaign, we went out and fought against a horde of 50 barbarians. Thanks to clever tactics (digging in at the top of a hill with rocks for cover, as well as forming a line), archery (our DM massively reduced movement speeds so that archery could actually be useful), and spell casting (many of the barbarians charged us from an even taller hill on our flank, and we used a casting of darkness to break up the charge and destroy their ranks).

Its a completely different experience from 3rd and 4th edition, focusing on the simulation side of gaming, rather than they gaminess of 4th edition (Don't get me wrong, I love 4th edition, but there were many game decisions sacrificing simulation for the sake of streamlining play). Of course, its definitely not for everyone.

AD&D was much more class based than 3.x, your class defined what you could do. There were no feats to be had, and precious little in the way of skills.
Multiclassing was done at 1st level for demi-humans (everything but humans) and you advanced both classes simultaniously splitting your xp between them and averaging the HP. Humans did it differently in an even more abusable fashion. Multiclassing without level restrictions was a far more powerful choice for your character generally speaking.

Multi-classing is almost essential for surviving the early levels (especially if you are a caster), while Dual-classing (as a human) was really weak. You were better off rolling a new character than dual-classing.

I also found it annoying that demi-humans were better than humans in pretty much every way... except for level caps. Level caps are the most retarded aspect of AD&D. Humans start off weak... but they have no bounds on their growth. But everyone else stops learning new things. Evidently only humans are "smart" enough to be high level. I can understand the need for a trade-off for playing a non-human, but this is just bad design.

The armour class works backwards from 10 to -10 at the pinnacle.
The stat bonuses are not linear nor are they the same for each stat
a 17 Str netts you +1 to hit and Damage, a 17 Dex gives you +3 to hit and -3 to your AC (a good thing). You also get different bonuses for high end stats dependant on your class whether you are a Fighter class (or subclass) or not.

Heh, one of my characters has an AC of -10. My DM random rolls our starting station. Everyone has a 1 in 10 chance of being a noble (except halflings, half-orcs, gnomes, and the like). If you make it, you roll percentile dice to see how noble you are. I rolled a 97, and I was a Dwarf. So, I was the crowned prince of the Dwarven Kingdom, starting with 100,000 gp. The way my DM has things set up, Dwarfs are the only race that allows their rulers to go adventuring, so such a feat could only be pulled off as a dwarf.

Anyway, I also rolled god-like stats (18-92 strength, 17 dex (The max dex for a dwarf. Ability score caps, another completely retarded concept), 15 wisdom, 15 con). My DM also has a rule that he added where you can buy a quality version of a non-magical item for 10x the price that adds 1 to the stats. For example, quality Plate Mail contributes 8 AC instead of the normal 7 AC. And, with my money, I could make all my stuff quality. And, I managed to buy a +4 shield that lets me blink for 12 rounds a day (magic items are rare in his world and can't be bought... unless you have connections and money, which I have as the prince). My Dex added another 3 AC, plus I worshiped the God of Defense, adding another AC, and I had a +1 Amulet of Protection that my father, the King, gave me (1 more AC and +1 to all saves). Total of -10 AC, without using armor that slows me down.

Anyways, one annoying thing about AD&D is that your stats are EXTREMELY important. In 3rd and 4th edition, stat bonus are linear. In 2nd edition, they are exponential. IIRC, you do not get a bonus for strength until like 15 or 16. Then, at 18 with percentile strength, the attack/damage bonus ranges from +2 to +5 (I don't have the book readily at hand, but its close to that).

As it goes, AD&D is where I cut my RPG teeth, it is quite usable and once you are used to it's quirks it runs pretty smooth.

Yeah, right. THAC0 is wacko, even if you aren't a teen. Sometimes you want to roll low and a natural 1 is good! Other times, you need to roll high and a natural 1 is bad! The rules are extremely primitive, inconsistent, and quite often counter intuitive. A good DM has to rewrite many of the rules in order to make the game playable. Not to mention there are a billion and one tables to consult. Of course, that's an improvement over 1st edition, where there was (almost literally) a table for EVERYTHING. Don't know what kind of vegetable you find in a farmer's vegetable patch? There's a table to help you! (I WISH I were joking.) 4th edition is smooth. 2nd edition is about as smooth as a gravel road. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it, but I don't have any illusions about how clunky it is.

I'd add that the older versions of the game place a higher emphasis on exploration, DM-player interaction, resource management, and the acquisition of treasure. Back in the day you got XP for every GP you found, which meant that you'd get far more XP from taking something's stuff than from killing it. Add in wandering monster tables, and you get a situation where being sneaky and clever is rewarded more than charging in, sword held high. Combat was lethal, and consumed valuable, finite resources; thus it was a better idea to avoid most combats unless there was treasure involved.

Personally, I like the randomness of AD&D. Its much more realistic. The world doesn't scale up around you based on your level, and monsters don't come carrying predefined parcels of treasure in a convenient package to help you meet your expected Wealth By Level. It is very much a boon and bust model. Occasionally you will score big time and find the mother load of treasure. Other times you will fight against some crazy level 10 custom monster with no treasure at all, which you can only defeat by bringing out the artifacts that your party has been hoarding (both have happened to our party).

However, when you EARN something, you have earned it. Its not like 3rd and 4th edition where the DM is EXPECTED to give out certain amounts of treasure. There is no CR. There is no WBL. Its an actual world. You may get lucky or unlucky. You are soft, squish, and you taste good with lemon juice. You may have a few tricks up your sleeve, like a powerful artifact, a shiny shield, or a few powerful spells, but if you screw up or get unlucky, you are dead. Or worse.

Now, AD&D's biggest issue is the huge variance. If you play with a sucky DM, the game will be terrible. You can't play AD&D out of the box. Its simply unplayable. However, it encourages experimentation and homebrewing. 3rd, and especially 4th, edition discourage homebrewing. They are fairly decent out of the box (3rd edition is completely broken out of the box, but very playable, while 4th edition is very well balanced and extremely enjoyable), so you don't need to work on improving the system.

But that makes a cookie-cutter experience. Worse, players expect that the same rules will be played everywhere, with all splat-books allowed, and that they will get level-appropriate encounters and enough treasure to satisfy WBL. If these expectations are violated, the player will complain. It takes a DM with vision and courage to change these things.

However, if you play AD&D with a good DM, it is an amazing experience. You don't have all of the safety nets and restrictions of 3rd or 4th edition (which are designed to standardize play experience) that get in the way of a DM who knows that they are doing.

A few more nitpicks: The experience progression for classes is flat out arbitrary. A bard levels much quicker than a wizard, so a bard with X experience will do much more damage with fireballs than a wizard of X experience. The 10% bonus in experience for having high ability scores is poor game design. The entire system unfairly weights high ability scores in general. (Of course, I probably shouldn't be complaining, with my 100,000 gp and my 18-92 strength at level 1.) The save system is also screwed up. Different saves for spells, wands, death, ect. "Hey, I'm being attacked with a wand that uses petrification! Which save do I use again?"

Oh yeah, and traps. Fortunately, my DM hates the Gygaxian style traps. Walking into a dungeon and getting traped into a closed that is slowly filling with acid, which is itself made of monsters filled with acid is funny the first time, but gets old. Also, no: "You have three doors! Behind door number 1: Instant Death! Behind door number 2: A priceless crown and gems. Behind door number 3: 100 pounds of sugar and three giant bees!" For some reason, 1st and 2nd edition modules have a lot of screwed up instant death traps (Tomb of Horrors, I'm looking at you!). Also, 2nd edition encourages DMs to screw over players. Just read the description for Wish. The way many DMs ran Wish, you'd might as well errata it to say "And then the character dies." Like this scenario: "I Wish for 100,000 gp." "A huge mound of gold materializes in mid air... 20 feet above you. And then you die.", or: "I wish for a turkey sandwich." "You get a turkey sandwich. And then you die."

Anyway, to sum everything up, AD&D satisfies a different need than 4th edition. If you want a nitty, gritty, realistic play experience without safety nets where you actually have to EARN treasure, play AD&D. If you like a care bear experience that is lots of fun to play but doles out rewards as if you are entitled to them, play 4th edition.

P.S.: Don't get me wrong, I love 4th edition. It is plain fun. But it just isn't the same as AD&D.

[TMZ_Cinoros]

For the most part, people who still play AD&D do so out of a combination of familiarity and nostalgia, as well as "grognardly" views on how the game should be (high rate of chance-based lethality, for example).

For the vast majority of gamers, there is literally nothing worthwhile about AD&D. It's not even a rules-light game, if 3.x is too crunch-heavy for your tastes.

I agree, AD&D is very primitive and clunky. But it has an attitude that I find refreshing, in comparison to 3rd and 4th edition. In AD&D you have to EARN your successes. There is no CR, no WBL. If you have a large party (about 20), and your DM vets out the bad monsters (monsters with save-or-die abilities, level loss, or other stupid and unfair abilities), a low-level party that prepares adequately and plays intelligently can do very well. The lack of safety nets makes the good times so much better than in 3rd and 4th edition. Of course, an average experience in AD&D is far worse than an average experience in 4th edition.

Anyways, I love 4th edition a lot, but every so often I like playing a game where I have earned my rewards, rather than having them served to me in terms of WBL and parcels, earned in a battle designed to be challenging but not too hard. Yes, wiping to a dragon way above your level is a downer, but beating the odds and succeeding, then taking the dragon's treasure horde, is an amazing experience.

[Starbuck_II]

Personally, I love AD&D. Of course, it is extremely primitive and I have an amazing DM who has been playing since the 70's. He has spent countless hours creating a world (he has over 200 pages of documents on his computer, specifying locations, custom items, custom monsters, maps, special rules, npcs, anything you can think of), so my experience isn't typical.

I agree, AD&D had some good moments.

I agree. Around the time of 3rd edition, the entire attitude of D&D changed a lot. WotC did a lot to standardize game play for 3rd edition (which it took even further in 4th edition). My DM doesn't really allow splatbooks from 2nd edition, since his custom world wouldn't permit a lot of the material, but as far as I can tell, splat books in 2nd edition were more along the lines of options.

Aren't splatbooks always about options?

Multi-classing is almost essential for surviving the early levels (especially if you are a caster), while Dual-classing (as a human) was really weak. You were better off rolling a new character than dual-classing.

Not true. Dual classing had its uses.
However, it could only be done with high stats.
Example in 3rd edition: Fighter/Mage/Prc.
In 2nd edition it would be: Fighter about 10/dual into Mage or vice versa.

Really, if you could pull it off you rock.

However, stats were 3d6 down the line (sometimes arranged how like it), but that is a much lower distribution than 3rd and 4th's 4d6 (if you roll).

Anyways, one annoying thing about AD&D is that your stats are EXTREMELY important. In 3rd and 4th edition, stat bonus are linear. In 2nd edition, they are exponential. IIRC, you do not get a bonus for strength until like 15 or 16. Then, at 18 with percentile strength, the attack/damage bonus ranges from +2 to +5 (I don't have the book readily at hand, but its close to that).

I agree here. Stats were 70% of character: determined classes allowable (Paladins had MAD back than to even start as one), Exp bonus, etc.

4th edition is smooth. 2nd edition is about as smooth as a gravel road. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it, but I don't have any illusions about how clunky it is.

Agreed, it was rocky. A good DM made it good, but an average one maybe not.

3rd, and especially 4th, edition discourage homebrewing. They are fairly decent out of the box (3rd edition is completely broken out of the box, but very playable, while 4th edition is very well balanced and extremely enjoyable), so you don't need to work on improving the system.

4th doesn't discourage it as much. Page 42 allows some ad hoc situations (resolves almost any situation).

The save system is also screwed up. Different saves for spells, wands, death, ect. "Hey, I'm being attacked with a wand that uses petrification! Which save do I use again?"

I think Wands take priority over paralysis. But it has been very long since I played.

Just read the description for Wish. The way many DMs ran Wish, you'd might as well errata it to say "And then the character dies." Like this scenario: "I Wish for 100,000 gp." "A huge mound of gold materializes in mid air... 20 feet above you. And then you die.", or: "I wish for a turkey sandwich." "You get a turkey sandwich. And then you die."

Again, I agree.
Sadly a few 3rd edition DMs on the foums in WotC thought that meant you should still screw up wishes (you could tell they came from 2nd edition).


I should say that miniatures and D&D always went together in my exp. Since AD&D, every DM used them.

[Knaight]

Basically it is a more customizable half complete game, except for with a table for everything. But you can get the same thing playing Fudge, which is also a half complete game, and highly customizable. Not many tables though, and if your looking for lethal your probably going to have to modify the wounding system a bit, or use one of the alternative wounding systems. Its clunky, it doesn't have decades of game design and tons of games behind it making it better, and the mechanics are odd, but once you get used to it its simpler to play. More to my taste than either third or fourth edition, but usurped by Fudge, which offers the same thing but way more highly developed(seeing as it came 15 years later), and more versatile, without classes.

[crimson77]

Kits made every thing more interesting...

Instead of prestige classes which one can get at higher levels in 3.x, kits were given at first level with a multitude of bonuses and a few hindrances. Kits were only found in the complete series of books. Kits allowed your fighter to be more than just a fighter. However, since one got all their powers at first level, it made gaining levels a little less exciting.

Even with the disadvantages presented, I enjoyed ADnD a lot. Even still, a few friends and I break out our old books and play. ADnD had a freedom that is not found in 3.x.

[Triaxx]

If you've played Baldur's Gate, you've got the general idea. Struggle to survive the first few levels, then... continue to struggle.

It is NOT like BG2. It is indescribable how not like BG2 it is.

[Starbuck_II]

Instead of prestige classes which one can get at higher levels in 3.x, kits were given at first level with a multitude of bonuses and a few hindrances. Kits were only found in the complete series of books. Kits allowed your fighter to be more than just a fighter. However, since one got all their powers at first level, it made gaining levels a little less exciting.

Even with the disadvantages presented, I enjoyed ADnD a lot. Even still, a few friends and I break out our old books and play. ADnD had a freedom that is not found in 3.x.

In Buldar's Gate (based on AD&D rules): there Kits aren't all front loaded. Example: Wizard Slayer gets Magic resistance amount per X levels.

I never played with complete books but Kits seemed a good idea.

[TMZ_Cinoros]

Aren't splatbooks always about options?

In theory. I don't know about other groups, but my 3.5 edition group frequently pulled random feats and classes from a large number of obscure books. From looking on the forums, it appeared as though the Completes were automatically assumed to be allowed. In character building, people frequently recommend things from random splat books. For whatever reason, the general attitude was that all splat books were allowed. Yes, the DM could ban a book or say only a certain list of books were allowed, but the general expectation is that most splatbooks are legal for the game.

I haven't really read much about 2nd edition character creation online, and my view point is based of the perception of my DM from before 3rd edition came out, but the attitude toward splatbooks was completely different. The player didn't come to a game, demanding that certain splat books were allowed. The DM said that these are the books that will be used. End of discussion. Players didn't beg for broken feature X from obscure book Y. My 2nd edition DM said that he was very surprised by the change in attitude when he tried to DM a 2/3.5 hybrid game. People were bringing in all kinds of splatbooks that he had never heard of, which had never happened to him back in the 2nd edition days. The game was a dismal failure, falling apart rapidly due to the inability to agree on a rule set. After that, he decided to not allow splatbooks, and concentrated on 2nd edition as a DM (but playing in 3.5 and 4th edition games and constantly complaining about gaminess and lack of realism in the new systems).

Not true. Dual classing had its uses.
However, it could only be done with high stats.
Example in 3rd edition: Fighter/Mage/Prc.
In 2nd edition it would be: Fighter about 10/dual into Mage or vice versa.

Really, if you could pull it off you rock.

I was under the general impression that around 10th level, you could pretty much beat everything anyways. Of course, that could be because my DM vetted out about 2/3rd of the monsters because they had unfair abilities or didn't make sense in his world. He also drastically reduces the amount of XP that monsters give to make level progression much slower, as he loves the low levels.

However, stats were 3d6 down the line (sometimes arranged how like it), but that is a much lower distribution than 3rd and 4th's 4d6 (if you roll).

Yeah. My DM is nice and allows players to roll 5 sets of attributes for each new character (10 if the character is made on a special day called "All Gods' Day", when a bunch of people get together, get drunk, and form an adventuring party) using 4d6, drop lowest. Then, you choose 1/2 of those sets of attributes (depending on if you are joining the game with 2 characters or replacing a killed character). He also allows one swap between two ability scores.

I agree here. Stats were 70% of character: determined classes allowable (Paladins had MAD back than to even start as one), Exp bonus, etc.

Yeah. My Dwarven prince with the 18-92 strength fought in a gearless (one provided weapon permitted) tournament fight. I was only level 2, but I was kicking the level 4's asses. Except for a level 4 who had stats almost as good as me and got a few lucky bashes in (we also have a fumble, crit, and bash system that we added on).

Agreed, it was rocky. A good DM made it good, but an average one maybe not.

Yeah, an average 2nd edition game is absolutely terrible by modern standards. I believe that one of the major goals of 4th edition is to make the average gaming experience as good as possible. However, it does so at the cost of some things that I think are a core part of fantasy gaming, like getting a kick-ass wand that deals massive damage. This simply doesn't work in the framework of 4th edition, because there are no consumables except potions! A wand of BSU (Blow-S***-up) would be unbalancing in 4th edition land. However, in 2nd edition land, it will save your life when a flight of hungry dragons flies by over head...

4th doesn't discourage it as much. Page 42 allows some ad hoc situations (resolves almost any situation).

No, 4th edition is MUCH more restrictive than 3.5. The 3.5 DMG encouraged DMs to custom make prestige classes. The presented classes in the DMG are supposed to be examples. But when have you ever seen a DM actually custom make a prestige class? I really think the wording was a hold-over from 3rd edition, coming of the heels of 2nd edition where home brewing wasn't just common, but necessary. The 3.5 DMG even has comprehensive rules for creating your own items of all kinds.

As for ad-hoc situations, the DMG and the Rules compendium talk quite a bit about how to handle ad-hoc situations. One example it gave was using a Handle-Animal check with a strength mod instead of a charisma mod to restrain a frightened horse. 3.5 had at least as many, if nor more, suggestions for handling things not in the rules as 4th edition.

On the other hand, I do not recall seeing very much in the way custom item rules in 4th edition. The DMG mentions that you should make your own artifacts and gives some vague guidelines. The PHB mentions that wands can be created using any encounter power. IIRC, 4th edition doesn't even mention custom items besides these things. If someone can prove me wrong, I'd be happy.

Of course, 4th edition does encourage DMs to refluff stuff, like giving monsters different descriptions to keep metagamers guessing, or changing the description of powers (such as making magic missiles look like black skulls instead of green bolts of energy). But that kind of stuff is trivial to change and does not affect game balance at all.

Also, pretty much all of the open-ended DM ajudicated powers, like Wish, have been removed. Yes, this means no more "And then you die!" and sheer brokenness, but it also means less creative use of powers. It just seems like to me 4th edition's design philosophy was to standardize things as much as possible so that a player can join pretty much any game and know what to expect. The uniformity of experience is both a blessing and a curse.

I think Wands take priority over paralysis. But it has been very long since I played.

Eh, it was more of a joke. The rules are clear on which save takes precedence, but its another arbitrary decision that you need to look up.

Again, I agree.
Sadly a few 3rd edition DMs on the foums in WotC thought that meant you should still screw up wishes (you could tell they came from 2nd edition).

After 30 years, we are FINALLY starting to see the attitude that its the DM's job to randomly screw over players go away. While Gary Gygax had a lot of cool ideas for D&D, this tradition was not one of them. Heck, the entire Handy-Haversack-In-Bag-Of-Holding-Black-Hole in 3.5 is nothing but a hold-over from a random ruling Gary Gygax made to screw over a player who wanted to nest extra dimensional spaces to store a bunch of gold. Thank God they removed that from 4th edition.

I should say that miniatures and D&D always went together in my exp. Since AD&D, every DM used them.

That's no accident. 3rd edition STRONGLY pushes the usage of a grid, so that WotC can sell miniatures. Remember, WotC's flagship product is Magic: The Gathering. They make most of their money by selling collectible items. Don't get me wrong, I love Magic: The Gathering and WotC (after playing MTG for 8 years and judging for them for 4 years, including getting paid by them to fly to several big tournaments). But I don't think that them pushing using a grid in 3rd edition and selling minis is a coincidence.

Edit:

Ok, my accusations of money-grabbing by WotC aren't entirely on point. My DM did use a lot of miniatures on a grid system long before 3rd edition. Its almost impossible to do tactics without a battle grid to measure distance and position. And Miniatures are flat out cooler than using dice or legos or whatever. Though I believe the entire concept of 5-ft squares was in part put into D&D to push the sales of miniatures. The usage of squres as a standard unit of measurement in 4th edition is another thing that I find down right silly (particularly the fact that dragons now breath perfect cubes of fire and whatnot).

[Covered In Bees]

Right . . .

And 3.x is nothing more than a twinkfest min-maxer's paradise with no redeaming values whatsoever for real roleplaying.

I certainly consider everything that I said completely countered.

(LOL WUT?)

And Miniatures are flat out cooler than using dice or legos or whatever.

YOU TAKE THAT BACK. Legos are vastly awesomer and more fun to use than minis, official or not.

[Jimp]

As a regular 2e player I admit that as a system and set of rules it's terrible and riddled with problems. I STILL don't understand THAC0. However, as an aide to a more RP-heavy session it is fantastic. Just don't expect it to handle intense tactical combat or anything that requires rules beyond 'roll against your [stat]'. The 2e group I play with is very RP heavy and the rules don't even come into it most of the time, barring maybe non-weapon proficiencies. The rules do come into handy when we get into fights.

[The New Bruceski]

AD&D was not based around a battlemap, though some people use one. Without a battlemap combat tends too move a lot faster, but it requires a good imagination and good descriptions from the DM to pull off.

And if/when the time comes that positioning does matter, it can be a bit irritating to figure out who was where. I don't count that against AD&D, but against any game without a battlemat where somebody might want to do some acrobatics.

"I'll swing off the chandelier and kick the orc through the window!"
"Wait, don't do that! I'm in the way!"
"I thought you were fighting the orc with the eye patch?"
"That IS the orc with the eye patch. Isn't it?"

I totally agree that it's doable with good descriptors, I just recall a decent number of times we had to pause because positioning suddenly became important. I'm not sure if those delays are greater or less than the ones with a battlemat, when you get a guy who needs to study every tactical option before moving a square.

EDIT: (rather than double-post) I really want to see the Players' Option books come back, those were great. "Don't like the way things are written? Here are more ideas! What if you cast spells using spell points? Or you were more powerful but went slightly more insane every time you cast a spell? Don't like the specialists we have? Make your own! Here's a list of anything you need to make your own caster! (Note: DMs have been instructed to slap you with a halibut if you do something stupid.)"

Those books just seemed to exemplify the "options limited only by your imagination and DM" aspect.

[RagnaroksChosen]

As a regular 2e player I admit that as a system and set of rules it's terrible and riddled with problems. I STILL don't understand THAC0. However, as an aide to a more RP-heavy session it is fantastic. Just don't expect it to handle intense tactical combat or anything that requires rules beyond 'roll against your [stat]'. The 2e group I play with is very RP heavy and the rules don't even come into it most of the time, barring maybe non-weapon proficiencies. The rules do come into handy when we get into fights.

Realy Thaco is super easy...

Take your thaco rating Lets say your first level so you have a 20...
take the aponints AC and subtract it from your Thaco, thats what you have to roll over to hit. if its Negative you add it instead... Literaly a math equation
Thaco - Ac = To hit
Roll a d20 add any modifiers if its > to hit then you hit...


On of my favorite things about 2ed is the amount of algebra involved... its realy simple if you look at every thing in the form of a math equation...

Its funny when really nerdish gamers are like i don't get how having a negatve armour is good....
well when you subtract a negative number you add it instead...(change of direction for all you calculus lovers out there)
3-(-2) = 5

[LibraryOgre]

It's pretty bad, really. It's a game that predated modern game design. The rules are very... slapped together?... and feel very random or arbitrary in a lot of places. They're also unnecessarily complicated. They enshrine the dice over everything else (lots of random tables, default character generation is 3d6 and you *can't* swap the stats around, rolling a 17 or an 18 rewards you quite disproportionately over and over).

My PH from 1993 (10th printing, 2nd edition) has six different ability score generation methods... while 3D6 straight down is the first, it's also the simplest. My PH from 1980 (6th printing, 1st edition) doesn't list a die rolling method, but it does say "it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics." The DMG from the same era (for players were advised to consult with the DM for how to roll up characters; mine is the "revised edition" from 1979) mentions that 3D6 is a hard way to do it; the Method I here is 4D6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste.

Default isn't 3D6 in order... unless you haven't read the books.

[Covered In Bees]

My PH from 1993 (10th printing, 2nd edition) has six different ability score generation methods... while 3D6 straight down is the first, it's also the simplest. My PH from 1980 (6th printing, 1st edition) doesn't list a die rolling method, but it does say "it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics." The DMG from the same era (for players were advised to consult with the DM for how to roll up characters; mine is the "revised edition" from 1979) mentions that 3D6 is a hard way to do it; the Method I here is 4D6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste.

That's either disingenuous, or a difference in versions. My PHB clearly says that 3d6 down the line is the method of stat generation. It then proceeds to give some alternative methods, but makes it clear that they're not the default.

[Jayabalard]

Default isn't 3D6 in order... unless you haven't read the books.

Default stat generation in the books that I had (1e AD&D, 2nd cover phb from ~87ish and BD&D) was 3d6 in order; I didn't see any alternate methods until unearthed arcana, which had several other methods. I seem to recall that all of the alternate methods in unearthed arcana were mentioned in the Dragon at one point or another, so my guess is that different printings had different stat rolling methods listed, and that the books after unearthed arcana defaulted to this with the alternates in the appendices of unearthed arcana, while the printings before 1985 may have included other methods.

[Chronicled]

YOU TAKE THAT BACK. Legos are vastly awesomer and more fun to use than minis, official or not.

It's true. Here's your proof. (Taken from this rather fun read, if anyone's curious.)

[Morandir Nailo]

Morandir: let's not try to pretend that AD&D is based on the tradition of Conan. In AD&D, Conan would fail his pickpocketing check (or would he even be able to make one, not being a Thief? Let's say he's dual-classed) and would promptly be cut down by the guards. John Carter is a pulp hero--AD&D doesn't do pulp, either. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser... closer, but still not really.

I certainly wouldn't call it "pretending." If you look at the appendix in the 1e DMG, those authors are all called out as having influenced Gygax et al in the creation of D&D; it's not called "Vancian" casting because Gygax thought the name sounded cool. The point is not to emulate the stories with any degree of exactitude, but rather to set the tone for the game. A quick Google search turned up this list, which you should find helpful.

Whether or not Conan would have done something is rather irrelevant here; being a literary character, his success or failure in anything is determined by the author's intentions for the story. D&D, being a game, uses dice instead.

Mor