* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Old Schoolers Taking 3rd ed Feats into their games. Started at 04-11-04 11:56 PM by Skyshroud7 Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=219048 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Skyshroud7 Date : 04-11-04 11:56 PM Thread Title : Old Schoolers Taking 3rd ed Feats into their games. After looking over the d20 compliation of feats I have seen a lot of them that can be used right away due to no checks and they are static. However there are some that require checks. How do you get past these obsticles? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Skyshroud7 Date : 04-12-04 10:38 AM Wow, no one does this? I know 3rd ed does not have the same base structure as the old ones, but to deny that these feats are cool, is just plain stupid. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Yorlum Date : 04-12-04 11:19 AM Thread Title : 3rd ed feats in 1 ed games They are... a Little *TOO* cool for 1st ed, if you take my meaning... That is, considering the generally fewer HP of 1st ed monsters, the combat feats, at the least, make the players too powerful. Giving PC's feats without making the baddies tougher, or at least taking an equivalent penalty from the PC's [but what?] would unbalance things, IMO... YMMV -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Aarchistut Date : 04-12-04 12:01 PM why would you want to go and bugger up a nice simplistic game like 1st or 2nd edition? you want that funk just go play 3rd ed! same thing in a way just a lot more paperwork to keep track of. you get a kewl new feat, whacks 100 kobbies in one hit. wow DM just has to make ultra kobbies with feats of their own. adding to many items to the check list takes the fun out of the game to me. ok the players get to say hey i get stupid nut buster feat and rolls, DM now has to utilise the monsters super nut buster block. a lot more simple to just use the normal roll to hit with modifiers. IMHO anyway -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : GreyLord Date : 04-12-04 08:12 PM Personally I haven't tried what you are suggesting. I probably wouldn't try what you are suggesting. It probably would be unbalancing to the game, and also makes the rules much more complex and rules oriented. HOWEVER, since you ask, I would say, use them like you would 2nd edition profficiencies. For one that is reliant upon an ability + level or to that degree, simply take it as a check from the ability, plus how ever many points they have in the Profficiency. Much like 2e, if you had the cooking profficiency, typically it meant that you could always cook something palatable, but only checked if you wanted to make something fancy or extravagent. Use a similar idea for 3e conversions of items to 2e or 1e, or at least that is my guess, if that's what you are asking. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Algolei Date : 04-13-04 04:59 AM I'd say basically what GreyLord says. Use Feats in the place of whatever skills don't normally require any rolls, like, um, Speak Language (or whatever it's called when you learn a new language--brain locked up on me just now). In other words, I wouldn't use anything directly out of the 3.x handbooks because most are too buffed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Skyshroud7 Date : 04-13-04 08:48 AM Well, I was thinking along the lines of Cleave, Great Cleave, Snatch Arrows. Hell even quick draw, how hard would that be to use, you get +2 to the initiatives. Toughness +3 hit points pretty easy there. And yes there are many more that are a litle more complex for example: Great Ki Shout - You can perform a Ki-empowered shout that can drive your opponents into a panic. When you make a Ki-shout your opponents are panicked for 1d6+1 rounds unless they save vs. paralyzation with a penalty of ¼ your character level + charisma reaction adjustment. This shout affects any opponent in a 10ft spread. Opponents in panic suffer a –2 penalty to all attack rolls, saves, checks, and have a 50% chance upon hearing the shout to drop what they are holding and run away from you as quickly as they can. The shout will not effect constructs, oozes, plants, undead, incorporeal creatures, and creature immune to critical hits. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Algolei Date : 04-14-04 01:04 AM Thread Title : The Voice of Salty Goodness None of those seem terribly realistic to me. *deleted by me because it's an argument about "realistic rules," and I don't want to go down THAT horrid road again!* But wait, this ain't the place to talk about 3rd edition. We're the Out Of Print board. So rather than start a hate-fest based on how 3E Feats make no sense, I'll go in this direction: Take what you want from 3E for your games--I know I do--but if you're finding yourself converting a lot of stuff, maybe you should consider going whole hog on the idea and just switching to straight 3rd edition rules. For my own rules, I would consider introducing anything from any edition that makes sense to me, that seems realistic, and that doesn't overpower whoever gets their hands on it. By that I mean it isn't something you need to take if you want to keep up with the Joneses...it ain't something you need to be effective...it doesn't change the paradigm...the game doesn't end up revolving around the new rules...that sort of thing. I think there was an example from the card game M:TG a while ago--some new card came out that you needed to have in your deck in order to win tournaments; if you didn't have it, you couldn't win. (I dunno if that's true or what card it was, because I don't play that game.) That's the sort of thing that changes the nature of the game when you introduce it. And that's what I'm suggesting should be avoided. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Incenjucar Date : 04-14-04 05:59 AM To be perfectly frank, 2e is where feats were invented. If you look at the Martial Arts proficiencies from the Ninja's Handbook, some of which also were pulled in to 2.5, feats -are- old school, just not nearly as accessable or generally as powerful. I wouldn't be surprised if they existed in 1e, in some form. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Aarchistut Date : 04-14-04 09:47 AM why i avoided them like the plauge -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Hiryu Date : 04-14-04 10:37 AM You obviously have no idea what-so-ever of what you're talking about, Incenjucar. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Incenjucar Date : 04-14-04 04:13 PM Right. That's why so much of the chapter on "Proficiencies and Martial Arts" in the Complete Ninja's Handbook is so devoted to "Special Maneuvers", many of which have correlations in OA and CW because they don't exist. It's not like Player's Option: Combat & Tactics has: "Alertness", Endurance, Iron Will, Leadership... yeah... Next you'll tell me there's no 3e-style flaming weapons in 2e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Stonebeard Date : 04-14-04 07:39 PM No, there is truly nothing in 3e that I would use in any previous version of the game. They would seem very much out of place to me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Serow Darkstar Date : 04-14-04 08:05 PM You wouldn't use weapons, classes, races, dice, dungeons, magic, or anything from 3rd edition? Really? Wow... Second edition must be a lot different than I remember... Because, if I remember correctly, this is all Dungeons and Dragons... And it's all the same game, really, just with rules differences. The style of my games from second and third edition is the same. Nothing but the rules has changed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Skyshroud7 Date : 04-14-04 11:52 PM I think there was an example from the card game M:TG a while ago--some new card came out that you needed to have in your deck in order to win tournaments; if you didn't have it, you couldn't win. Well, it was probally tolarian academy was the card, but it was banned before released into tournaments. I'm more into magic than D&D, I don't recall every hearing something like that. And youre not allow to put your deck in a certain order. Anyway, I don't care what the old people think of 3rd ed, or what the 3rd ed people think of the old ways, I just want to :censored::censored::censored::censored:ing know if anyone has tried this. And to say that EVERY single feat in third edition is unrelistic that is just being stubborn. I would not even consider the feats of 3rd if I did not think any of them are able to be "real" in 2nd ed. But screw this thread I thought D&D fans just played the game. Oh well, *close the topic* it is getting no where. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Incenjucar Date : 04-14-04 11:57 PM Like I said, Sky, they're -already- in there. Base any other feat translations on those found in the Ninja's book and Combat & Tactics, and you should be alright. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Algolei Date : 04-15-04 02:45 AM Well, it was probally tolarian academy was the card, but it was banned before released into tournaments. I'm more into magic than D&D, I don't recall every hearing something like that. And youre not allow to put your deck in a certain order. In hindsight, I probably got the wrong game. I was thinking more along the lines of the Elite Mechwarrior in the Battletech card game: Every winning deck had them in it. The Elite Mechwarrior card also ended up being banned. Anyway, I don't care what the old people think of 3rd ed, or what the 3rd ed people think of the old ways, I just want to :censored::censored::censored::censored:ing know if anyone has tried this. And to say that EVERY single feat in third edition is unrelistic that is just being stubborn. I didn't say every single feat is unrealistic, and I did try this. That's why I was warning you about adding anything to the game that ended up being an Elite Mechwarrior kinda thing. It's easy to add new rules to your game, but once they're in place and everyone's using them, it's hard to cut them out again. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : diaglo Date : 04-15-04 10:14 AM Originally posted by Serow Darkstar Nothing but the rules has changed. so don't use the 2000ed game then. i don't. yes, you can find elements of the new stuff in the old. where do you think they got the ideas for the newer editions from? nothing is original. don't do the reverse engineering. the older stuff is a different game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Serow Darkstar Date : 04-15-04 11:30 AM The older stuff is not a different game. It's still D&D. The rules may be a bit different, but, I can still play a human from Waterdeep in the Forgotten Realms. It doesn't matter what rules system I use, second, third, or 3.5... It's still D&D. See the name on the books? Yeah, still D&D. I played 2nd edition, 3rd, and 3.5. It's still playing the same game, it's just updates. Some of my more memorable characters have been played in all three systems. I can take their most recent incarnations, and backtrack into second edition if I want, because it'll still work. Sure, I'll have to get a little creative, but hey, I thought that was what D&D was all about? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : diaglo Date : 04-15-04 01:52 PM Originally posted by Serow Darkstar The older stuff is not a different game. It's still D&D. this is were i tell you to read my sig. the older stuff is better. the new stuff ain't D&D. it is just a poor imitation of the real thing.:smirk: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Serow Darkstar Date : 04-15-04 06:01 PM Oh no! Not a sig! The ultimate source of information, which is undeniably true! ... Wow, you must be insanely dense to think that that would be a functional arguement. "Hey, my sig says this, therefore it must be true!" I'm sorry, but, Original D&D is not the only game worth playing. Personally, I see 3rd edition, and 3.5, as much better systems wise, and for the story, than any of the previous editions. It's more stable, and supports more variation in character types. It's also just easier to use, and makes it easier for new players to get involved. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Incenjucar Date : 04-15-04 07:50 PM Calm down. Diaglo just keeps forgetting that a houserule is allowed to come from other editions of D&D. 3e is just a really really big houseruled version of Chainmail. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : zanderat Date : 04-16-04 10:52 AM Originally posted by Serow Darkstar I'm sorry, but, Original D&D is not the only game worth playing. Personally, I see 3rd edition, and 3.5, as much better systems wise, and for the story, than any of the previous editions. It's more stable, and supports more variation in character types. It's also just easier to use, and makes it easier for new players to get involved. Well then good for you. But some of us think differently. yeah, watch out for that diaglo guy... he has like a jillion sock puppets. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Yorlum Date : 04-16-04 11:51 AM I think this is drifiting off topic, but I will say that the feats of 3.x are one of the symptoms of a de-emphasis in the later evolutions of the game on ROLE playing in favor of Anime/arcade style play, where everyone can be super once they activite their . That said, I just don't think that 1st ed monsters are a decent challenge to parties who can throw cleaves, weapon focuses, improved initiatives, etc at them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Sildatorak Date : 04-16-04 02:49 PM Originally posted by Yorlum improved initiative On a dex check Quickness gets you a -2 on your d10 of initiative (equivalent to the +4 on a d20 of the imp. init.). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : rogueattorney Date : 04-16-04 03:19 PM Originally posted by Serow Darkstar The older stuff is not a different game. It's still D&D. The rules may be a bit different, but, I can still play a human from Waterdeep in the Forgotten Realms. You can play a human from Waterdeep in any number of different rpg's - GURPS, War Hammer, Cthulhu Darkages, whatever - but that doesn't make any of them D&D. It doesn't matter what rules system I use, second, third, or 3.5... It's still D&D. See the name on the books? Yeah, still D&D. I can stick a Cadillac logo on a Honda. That doesn't make the Honda a Cadillac. 3.x D&D was created by a different company, written by different people, for a different crowd of people, twenty-five years after the original came out. It's a different game. Back to the original poster's question. The disassociation of character abilities from classes into skills and feats is one of the things I dislike most about 3e. I realize this is a general trend that's been going on in the game since 1985 or so. I didn't like it then either. If I wanted more simulationist combat, I wouldn't be playing the older editions. If I wanted skill-based characters instead of class-based characters, I wouldn't be playing the older editions. That's all there is to it. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Stonebeard Date : 04-16-04 09:34 PM Originally posted by Yorlum I think this is drifiting off topic, but I will say that the feats of 3.x are one of the symptoms of a de-emphasis in the later evolutions of the game on ROLE playing in favor of Anime/arcade style play, where everyone can be super once they activite their . That said, I just don't think that 1st ed monsters are a decent challenge to parties who can throw cleaves, weapon focuses, improved initiatives, etc at them. I beg to differ, I think this thread started out as a troll for flames and that's exactly what it got. Feel free to differ with me if you like but I know how you can reading what's been posted here. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Demon Lightfoot Date : 04-16-04 10:58 PM Actually, the Martial Arts Proficiencies existed in the 1e Oriental Adventures, and Weapon Specialization (now a Feat) came from Unearthed Arcana. Several Feats in 3e had their start as NWP in the Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides. So they be old skool, yo. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : blackprinceofmuncie Date : 04-17-04 03:56 AM Originally posted by Skyshroud7 to deny that these feats are cool, is just plain stupid. Color me stupid. And proud of it. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Algolei Date : 04-17-04 04:41 AM Originally posted by Yorlum I think this is drifiting off topic... More to the point, the original poster doesn't want to hear any more answers and has fled. The rest of the thread is just a rehash of the ol' Edition Wars again and needs a severe locking. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : Incenjucar Date : 04-17-04 05:14 AM Originally posted by Demon Lightfoot Actually, the Martial Arts Proficiencies existed in the 1e Oriental Adventures, and Weapon Specialization (now a Feat) came from Unearthed Arcana. Several Feats in 3e had their start as NWP in the Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides. So they be old skool, yo. That's what I figured. 3e mostly just reorders a few things, changes some emphasis, and so forth. Just the power level is a bit tricky, unless you give feats to everything, or keep them powered down to fit in with the other "Special Maneuvers" and such. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : rogueattorney Date : 04-17-04 02:35 PM Originally posted by Demon Lightfoot Actually, the Martial Arts Proficiencies existed in the 1e Oriental Adventures, and Weapon Specialization (now a Feat) came from Unearthed Arcana. Several Feats in 3e had their start as NWP in the Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guides. So they be old skool, yo. The only thing this proves is that you and I have completely different interpretations of the phrase "old school." R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Demon Lightfoot Date : 04-17-04 05:12 PM Originally posted by rogueattorney The only thing this proves is that you and I have completely different interpretations of the phrase "old school." R.A. Y'all are gunna have to elaborate upon that statement, Jack. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : rogueattorney Date : 04-17-04 05:39 PM Originally posted by Demon Lightfoot Y'all are gunna have to elaborate upon that statement, Jack. Certainly. You pointed to Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventure, and the two Survival Guides as having rules resembling feats, and then said that feats were therefore "old school." The earliest one of these products didn't come out until 1985, which in my view does not constitute "old school". I'd go as far to say that anything published after 1982 isn't "old school." It has less to do with a time period than a general shift in the way the game was presented and designed. Of course, it's all relative. I'm sure some who were never exposed to the game until 3e, would refer to 2e as "old school." R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Demon Lightfoot Date : 04-17-04 06:47 PM 1e="old skool" to me, regardless of its place on the timeline thereof. 'Sides, everything in the Arcana was more or less culled from Gary's From The Sorcerer's Scroll columns, many of which were published prior to '85. OA was co-written by Gary, also in '85 (and, to correct my previous inaccuracy, was the Genesis of the NWP). That is more than enough to make it old skool. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Stonebeard Date : 04-17-04 09:15 PM Originally posted by Demon Lightfoot 1e="old skool" to me, regardless of its place on the timeline thereof. 'Sides, everything in the Arcana was more or less culled from Gary's From The Sorcerer's Scroll columns, many of which were published prior to '85. OA was co-written by Gary, also in '85 (and, to correct my previous inaccuracy, was the Genesis of the NWP). That is more than enough to make it old skool. 1e core rules PHB, DMG and MM are old school all those optional add-ons OA, UA, WSV DSV and the rest were just a prelude to 2e and the begining of the the end to some of us. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : Demon Lightfoot Date : 04-17-04 10:58 PM Originally posted by Stonebeard 1e core rules PHB, DMG and MM are old school all those optional add-ons OA, UA, WSV DSV and the rest were just a prelude to 2e and the begining of the the end to some of us. There was no such thing as "core rules" in 1e; that is truly a 3e concept and conceit, heretic. UA and OA were the Word Carved In Stone handed down from the Mountain by Gary himself. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : Yorlum Date : 04-17-04 11:01 PM Have to agree with the others here. The DMG was the last of the Old School, except Maybe FF and MM2, and I'm none to sure about including those, except they don't add rules. NWP came in the Dungeoneers Survival Guide, IIRC. Unless you feel like giving the baddies an equivalent power up, I still think giving players feats overpowers them in a 1e environment. YMMV -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : blackprinceofmuncie Date : 04-18-04 12:40 AM Originally posted by Demon Lightfoot UA and OA were the Word Carved In Stone handed down from the Mountain by Gary himself. Read the fine print inside the cover and you'll find that this is not so. Under "Credits"(emphasis mine): Original AD&D game: Gary Gygax Oriental Adventures concept: Gary Gygax with Francois Marceia-Froideval Oriental Adventures design: David "Zeb" Cook Mr. Cook was one of the main designers and driving forces behind 2e AD&D. Since OA was basically written by him, to his specifications, it seems reasonable to say that OA was well along the way toward 2e AD&D. Decidedly NOT old school to some of us. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : Incenjucar Date : 04-18-04 04:34 AM "Old School" can apply to anything that is not currently in production, even 3.0. Arbitrary "us vs. them" definitions are meaningless. What you really want to say is "The Rules that I prefer over others that occured afterwards". Technically, D&D is all just based on chainmail, and THAT is based on whatever wargames Gygax and pals used to play together that sparked this idea. OD&D is just a pale mockery of Chess and Knucklebones. It's an undefinable term, and isn't going to do anything but cause more edition elitism and CoC-violating arguments. Let's focus on the thread topic. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : Algolei Date : 04-18-04 05:09 AM Originally posted by Demon Lightfoot There was no such thing as "core rules" in 1e.... True dat! :D We called them the core books, not the core rules. UA and OA were the Word Carved In Stone handed down from the Mountain by Gary himself. Really? How long did you play those rules like that? I always wanted to try a cavalier, but never got the chance. In every campaign I played in, only the three core books were "carved in stone." Anything from UA was only allowed by the DM's consent. Even in our OA campaign, OA's rules and spells were accepted on a case by case basis. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : Stonebeard Date : 04-18-04 01:38 PM Originally posted by Demon Lightfoot There was no such thing as "core rules" in 1e; that is truly a 3e concept and conceit, heretic. UA and OA were the Word Carved In Stone handed down from the Mountain by Gary himself. Then please explain to me why the Core Rules 2 CD is entirely 2nd edition? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : blackprinceofmuncie Date : 04-18-04 04:01 PM Originally posted by Incenjucar "Old School" can apply to anything that is not currently in production, even 3.0. Arbitrary "us vs. them" definitions are meaningless. It's an undefinable term, and isn't going to do anything but cause more edition elitism and CoC-violating arguments. Let's focus on the thread topic. It doesn't really have anything to do with edition elitism or being arbitrary. The original point rogueattorney made was that people CAN have different definitions of "Old School". It's an ambiguous term. The assertion was made that Feats (as represented by Weapon Specialization and OA martial arts techniques and NWPs) were "Old School" by any definition and that this is proven by the fact that they were incorporated by the originator of the "School" Gary Gygax. In the case of OA this is patently not true. The Feat-like material in OA was not of Gary Gygax's design and differed in design philosophy from his original works. They were unquestionably a deviation from the "Oldest School". The design philosphy that spawned the 1974 box set can clearly be seen in later supplements, the Holmes box set and eventually the AD&D PHB, DMG and MM. Even the things in UA are based on the same general goals and principles of design. This makes sense since they were all created by a single designer. The branch of D&D that became BECMI deviated from the original design philosphy to some extent. Though the Moldvay Basic book is still very similar to Holmes. Essentially, this created another "School". The design of the game was very similar but the goals the designers had for the game were different from the AD&D line, so the experience was naturally different for those playing it. Eventually, supplements for 1e not designed by the same person were produced, and with a change of primary author the philosphy behind the design changed as well. The purpose and feel of the game changed. A yet another "School" emerged in D&D. Eventually, this new "School" culminated in AD&D 2e. The same thing happened with 2e. As more supplements were produced by authors different from the original authors, new design philosphies and goals crept in, changing the game into another "School" which culminated in 3e. So to say that anything older than the current edition is "Old School" and they can't be separated into individual "Schools" is unreasonable. No one can deny that 2nd edition AD&D and original 1974 D&D are different games, designed by different people with different design philosophies and goals in mind. To make the claim that two such different games don't also have a different feel and provide a different gaming experience for those playing them is really not credible. If I have a preference for the feel and experience of one and not the other, and the one I prefer is "Old School" to me, then it's perfectly reasonable to make distinctions between my definition of "Old School" and another person's definition of "Old School" if our preferences differ. No one is making the claim that "my Old School is better than yours". We're just making distinctions between versions of the game where the emergence of Feat-like rules began and versions where Feat-like rules played no part of the design philosophy. Mostly just for the sake of clarity. :teach: It would be fairly easy to incorporate feats into a late 2e game, because the design ideas that eventually led to feats were already emerging in that system. The transition is not that drastic. As you move further and further away from the 2e-3e bridge, the design of the game moves further and further away from being "feat friendly". Eventually you come to a game design where incorporation of feats without a major change to the system is disruptive, because the system was designed without even the kernel of the idea of feats in mind. It would be like trying to use parts from a 2004 Ford Mustang on older versions of the same car. You could probably do so with a 2002 Ford Mustang without too many problems. Most of the parts would fit or at least be easily modifiable to fit. Try going back to a 1990 Ford Mustang and you're going to find a lot more parts that don't fit or that require a lot more modification. Try going back to a 1970 Ford Mustang and you're probably going to have to redesign the entire car to get anything to fit. The 2004 model has parts and systems that weren't even possible when the 1970 model was made, and the 1970 model has parts and systems that were dropped from the modern design long ago. What rogueattorney is saying is that to him, Classic Ford Mustang means one thing (let's say pre-1980) and to Demon Lightfoot it means another (let's say pre-1995). You can't have a useful discussions about using modern Mustang parts in "Classic Mustangs" when you have two people with such drastic definitions of Classic unless they understand and accept that their definitions differ. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : Incenjucar Date : 04-18-04 05:45 PM Precisely. Which is why I suggested we avoid vague terms like "old school", and stick to things like, say, "Gygax-only School" or the like. Something that is strictly defined, and doesn't have to be clarified for every single individual who uses it, because, again, one can just say that D&D 0e is new age, while Chainmail is the real old school. Or chess is the real old school. Or knuckle bones. Or "Throw the stick at the mastadon and run". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : diaglo Date : 04-19-04 08:11 AM Originally posted by rogueattorney I'd go as far to say that anything published after 1982 isn't "old school." i'd go so far as to say that anything published after 1977 isn't "Old School." :smirk: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : Hiryu Date : 04-20-04 01:22 AM Then I will go as far as to say that anything published after the 1500's isn't old-school. Seriously, why is this "my daddy can beat up your daddy" thread still going? Trully, this is a mod-forsaken board. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : The WarOverlord Date : 04-20-04 09:16 AM Does anyone does the "First Try" Roll? I.E. If a Character has never rode a horse before you roll a die to detirmine if Unskilled (can't ride), Begginer (Minimum points in Feat), Good (Average points in feat), or Natural (High pointage in feat). I mean I had to learn how to shoot a pistol, but I am a natural "crack shot" with a rifle from when I picked it up, take profesional looking Photographs from the beggining, but still can only draw stick figures so the "First Try" roll which was a @nd eddition Option seemed pretty realistic to me with I.E. During a fight Rath falls over a cliff and falls into a raging River and (Roll to see if Rath can Swim as this is his first time) he rolls for "Begginer" and manages to "Doggie Paddle" and keep afloat and swim to the rivers edge :rolleyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : Yorlum Date : 04-20-04 09:20 AM Originally posted by The WarOverlord Does anyone does the "First Try" Roll? I.E. If a Character has never rode a horse before you roll a die to detirmine if Unskilled (can't ride), Begginer (Minimum points in Feat), Good (Average points in feat), or Natural (High pointage in feat). I mean I had to learn how to shoot a pistol, but I am a natural "crack shot" with a rifle from when I picked it up, take profesional looking Photographs from the beggining, but still can only draw stick figures so the "First Try" roll which was a @nd eddition Option seemed pretty realistic to me with I.E. During a fight Rath falls over a cliff and falls into a raging River and (Roll to see if Rath can Swim as this is his first time) he rolls for "Begginer" and manages to "Doggie Paddle" and keep afloat and swim to the rivers edge :rolleyes: No, but that's an interesting idea. I may steal it... thanks~ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : Stonebeard Date : 04-20-04 07:59 PM Originally posted by Hiryu Then I will go as far as to say that anything published after the 1500's isn't old-school. Seriously, why is this "my daddy can beat up your daddy" thread still going? Trully, this is a mod-forsaken board. I'm wondering why your still reading it? As for me... i'm between games so i'm bored enough to read anything. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : Demon Lightfoot Date : 04-20-04 11:46 PM Originally posted by Stonebeard I'm wondering why your still reading it? As for me... i'm between games so i'm bored enough to read anything. Oh, goodie. Originally posted by Stonebeard Then please explain to me why the Core Rules 2 CD is entirely 2nd edition? The 2e "Core Rules" CD and the 3e "Core Rules" concept are literal universes apart. The "Core Rules" CD contains the bulk of the 2e sourcebooks ever published, 20 or so volumes -- 9 hardbacks and 11 softcovers -- Arms & Equipment Guide, Complete Book of Dwarves, Complete Book of Elves, Complete Book of Gnomes and Halflings, DM Option: High-Level Campaigns, Dungeon Master Guide, Complete Bard's Handbook, Complete Druid's Handbook, Complete Fighter's Handbook, Complete Paladin's Handbook, Complete Priest's Handbook, Complete Ranger's Handbook, Complete Thief's Handbook, Complete Wizard's Handbook, Monstrous Manual, Player's Handbook, Player's Option: Combat & Tactics, Player's Option: Spells & Magic, Player's Option: Skills & Powers and Tome of Magic. Plus a couple of mapping programs. Which is a far cry conceptually from the "Just the PHB, DMG and MM" Core Rules of 3e. Short form: while the words "Core Rules", as applied to the CD and to the 3e philosophy, have the same shapes, they mean vastly different things. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : diaglo Date : 04-21-04 08:02 AM Originally posted by Demon Lightfoot Short form: while the words "Core Rules", as applied to the CD and to the 3e philosophy, have the same shapes, they mean vastly different things. don't forget they had the Core Rules Expansion CD too ;) for the 2edADnD Core Rules CD -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : Stonebeard Date : 04-21-04 08:31 PM Thank you Mr. Webster. You miss my point entirely, the core rules of any game system, whatever version it may be, is the least amount of books needed to play the game. For d20 starwars it would be the one book Star Wars Roleplaying Game core rule book. Well named isn't it? For any version of AD&D its the PHB, DMG and MM. For OD&D it would be the basic set or the Rule's Encyclopedia. (no offense to you real old timers out there who remember the original three book set). Why only the basic set and the RC? Because these are the only sources in OD&D with rules for making characters. There! No, its not a dictionary definition but it explains the concept adequately. Why do some people want to approach the GAME of AD&D as if it were rocket science? Its not that difficult and if Gary Gygax appeared before anyone and cast down stone tablets with rules stamped into it please let me know. In my day we didn't need hard definitions of otherwise simple concepts any more than we needed a rule to cover any possibility that might come up. We understood the concept the writer was going for then ran with it in any direction we wanted to. Or perhaps this is just lame attempt to hide behind a bunch of long and fancy words. Better luck next time. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : blackprinceofmuncie Date : 04-21-04 11:53 PM Originally posted by Stonebeard In my day we didn't need hard definitions of otherwise simple concepts any more than we needed a rule to cover any possibility that might come up. We understood the concept the writer was going for then ran with it in any direction we wanted to. You sir, are sig-worthy! :bow: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : OlafTheUnbathed Date : 05-08-04 07:52 PM Comment on the original topic: I have not tried this and would not. Try looking at it from this angle: 1e already has "feats" and "skills". They are hardwired into the class descriptions. Those strong, sharply-defined, deliberately customization-unfriendly archetypes are the heart of the game. And, back off topic and back to the "neener neener neener" festival: Because, if I remember correctly, this is all Dungeons and Dragons... No, sir. The label says D&D. 3e is Monte-n-Skip's Unauthorized GURPS. With the right lawyer, Steve Jackson could own the Wizzes - and by extension, this board. Hmmm.... hey, Steve.... UA and OA were the Word Carved In Stone handed down from the Mountain by Gary himself. No, sir. Zeb Cook is responsible for Oriental Adventures - which is the book that marked AD&D jumping the shark. Gary wanted Froideval to do OA but the Blumes gave the project to Cook. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:20 AM.