* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Started at 04-07-07 10:34 PM by Immortality Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=824523 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Immortality Date : 04-07-07 10:34 PM Thread Title : Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Hi guys - congrats on a brilliant forum! I've recently decided to brush the dust of all my old AD&D books and try to get back into it. After reading through the PH and DMG again, I remember everything I loved about the game when I was a kid. Heres my question, and I apologise if it's been covered 1000 times already in other threads already. I really want to find a group of guys may age (30-40) to start a campaign, but I love the modules I used years ago - Keep on The Borderlands, Pharaoh, Ravenloft, Hommlet etc...basically 1st edition modules and rules. Would you guy recommend biting the bullet and buying all new modules and source books to learn the new 3E system, or staying 1stE (since I own a fair amount of the associated books and modules)?. I've read some of the features and changes in 3E which sound cool, but I have no problem with the original system in 1stE, and since I know and love the 1stE so much, is there really a whole lot more to be gained by upgrading when after all, its the imagination of the DM and players that really make the game. Perhaps someone knows a URL that pin-points rules from 2E & 3E that work well with 1stE? Look forward to you comments. Cheers Oh, PS: Any old school gamers from Auckland in New Zealand interested in hooking up, drop a reply here. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Dagger4192 Date : 04-08-07 07:13 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I too decided to get back into D&D after many years. I bought a bunch of 3rd edition books. With feats and classes being introduced in nearly every book, it's sort of addicting to keep buying them! After playing it for about 6 months, I grew tired of the immense amount of prep time and general complexity of the system. I have since sold all my 3rd edition books and play 2nd Edition and Castles and Crusades. I'm much happier! One of the big differences in 3rd edition is that character optimization is a much bigger deal. If you have players who have mastered the system playing alongside players who just want to have fun, you can have a pretty big divide in character capability. Monsters are much more complex as well... they have attribute scores as well as character classes. Combat has a lot more tactical options now and seems to take longer. Characters have feats that they can use in combat which causes the game to stop quite often as players dig through their source books to look up specific modifiers, etc... I also find combat harder to adjudicate as a DM. I hope all that helps! I recommend sticking with AD&D or even trying out Castles and Crusades (has the benefits of the new d20 mechanic with the simplicity of basic D&D) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Immortality Date : 04-08-07 08:14 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Thanks Dagger, what you say is pretty much the way I see the new 3E rules too. The thing is, when I DM, Im a big fan of letting the story lead the way and getting PC's to interact with the story as much as possible - even awarding XP for great theatrics and role playing. Nothing is more boring then looking up stats and calculating modifiers for precise die roles. To me creature hit points and stats are more of a guideline, if PC's are using inventive and entertaining ways to combat monsters, I pretty much never let them die in combat. Either they deal a miraculous death blow on their last dyeing attempt, or the monster retreats, or knocks the PC's unconscious, perhaps a wandering party of adventurers happens upon the fight and helps save the day - what ever works for the story and keeps the players involved. Hence, more rules and regulations wouldn't really do it for me. Besides, I just love those old 1st edition modules! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : mysticpot31 Date : 04-08-07 06:04 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I was hooked on 3rd edition at first also. The skills really got me into it, they just allowed for so much to happen and made a character feel more complete. As we were playing 3rd edition more and more though most of us felt something was missing, we also got into a lot more arguments about things, and we got very strict about what a character can and cant do. I also found as a DM the rulebooks hideously expensive and didnt add much to the game except more useless rules. I to found the creatures too complicated and time consuming and things like giving a rat weapon finesse just to offset the strengh penalty rather stupid(gave the rat like a +4 bonus to hit...its a freakin rat and it should have a penalty to hit) and i found problems with other creatures also. I guess one feels kind of smothered by 3rd edition there is sooo many options and you can never really tell what effect something has on a game until you use it. I also want to state that I dont like Ebberon, its a mess of a world really, there is just too many out of place things existing in the same world, its more star wars than lord of the rings and I would rather play a campaign in the latter than the former(or a DND one anyways). If Ebberon was just another campaign world then thats fine but it has bumped its way into the core DnD it seems and well I dont like that one bit. So I have repurchased all the core 2nd edition stuff that I am missing and am planning a nice good ol fashion Greyhawk campaign( a true AD&D world) and I couldnt be happier to leave the 3rd edition mess that reeled me in the first time. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Dagger4192 Date : 04-08-07 07:55 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Sad thing is I spent like 800 bucks on 3rd edition books until I came to that realization:( I want to be fair here and state that 3rd edition is very thorough and fair. There are very few grey areas in regard to rules. All the classes are relatively balanced with one another. It's truly a solid, well thought out game system. The fundamental problem for me is that achieving that level of consistency and balance requires so many rules. One of the charming things about older editions is the fact that you had to make up things on the spot. Many powerful spells and powers were open to interpretation, which I felt added mystery to the game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Immortality Date : 04-09-07 06:34 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E ...One of the charming things about older editions is the fact that you had to make up things on the spot. Many powerful spells and powers were open to interpretation, which I felt added mystery to the game. I hear you on that. The less player know about rules, the less a DM will need to invoke them I reckon. In the front of pretty much every module and source book there is a note saying something along the lines of this information following to to be used as a guideline, and the DM should expand upon the given data to suit the campaign. I don't recall ever seeing in a AD&D book "This is an unbreakable law, resulting in banishment for any DM attempting to modify it" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Varl Date : 04-09-07 11:08 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E One of the charming things about older editions is the fact that you had to make up things on the spot. Many powerful spells and powers were open to interpretation, which I felt added mystery to the game. Exactly. Another charming thing about AD&D is the perception that 50% of the game system is yours to reinvent, twist, change, or otherwise modify to how you want the system to be, and that doesn't break or disrupt any other system within the rules. I love that aspect of AD&D. Rules without the chains. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Vampirelord Date : 04-09-07 02:33 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E So, 3rd edition dosen't encourage you to change the rules as you see fit? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : blue_slaad Date : 04-09-07 07:46 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E If you love 1dAD&D, don't change. I like both 3e and 1e. I am currently looking forward to playing a sorcerer in a 3.5e game. It is just that 3.5 takes more effort to run than play, for me! I am also starting a new 1e AD&D game this saturday, using T1-4, ToEE. Both games are different, really. That does not mean exclusive. I say go ahead, grab those loved modules of old, and find some players. My group is new to 1e. They have played a bit of 3e in the past. I simply said "okay, lets play the grandaddy of them all...see if you can survive the Temple of Elemental Evil! By the way, we are using the original ADND rules, so make some characters." I heard no complaints. We have: A human ranger A human druid A half-elf (drow) thief A dwarf fighter And a unknown character to be made up right before the game, probably a cleric or druid. The nice thing is that three of the players are of middle-school age, bringing in new blood to the old edition. Plenty of grognards, but we need to replenish the ranks. One of the kids is running a 3e game on seperate days, first time DMing. Good gaming is good gaming, in any edition. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : longlivelavey Date : 04-10-07 07:27 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E As a gamer who started in 1983, I play with the 1st edition books but use features from 2nd - 3.5 as I see fit. All of the editions after the 1st, provide an array of new monsters and special abilities that can be adapted to 1st edition rules. Currently I am running a 1st edition campaign, while using certain game features from 3.5. It's quite fun, and it allows some variety to be added to the classic modules of the 80s. The players in my group have a great time. longlivelavey -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : 20102000 Date : 04-10-07 11:11 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Hi guys - congrats on a brilliant forum! I've recently decided to brush the dust of all my old AD&D books and try to get back into it. After reading through the PH and DMG again, I remember everything I loved about the game when I was a kid. Heres my question, and I apologise if it's been covered 1000 times already in other threads already. I really want to find a group of guys may age (30-40) to start a campaign, but I love the modules I used years ago - Keep on The Borderlands, Pharaoh, Ravenloft, Hommlet etc...basically 1st edition modules and rules. Would you guy recommend biting the bullet and buying all new modules and source books to learn the new 3E system, or staying 1stE (since I own a fair amount of the associated books and modules)?. I've read some of the features and changes in 3E which sound cool, but I have no problem with the original system in 1stE, and since I know and love the 1stE so much, is there really a whole lot more to be gained by upgrading when after all, its the imagination of the DM and players that really make the game. I find that a lot of 1e gamers coming to 3e, go through a similar cycle. They try 3e. Pick up some of the rules. Don't like some of the results, or style. Start adding on house rules, or go back to 1e, or some hybrid. For those that persist with the rules some what. They start making sense , combat become quicker. High level Dming seems to be time consuming though IMHO. The easy option for you is 1e, because you already have what you need. I think the D20 system is excellent. Note D20 and not D&D. It wasn't until I played some D20 traveller, and chutlhlu, that I understood the format better, and got a better understanding of the rules. And I would never go back to 1e, and all those thaco , I get a headache thinking about it. If you want to persist with the 3e. The SRD are free, you don't need to spend money. There are conversions available. I've run Pharaoh as 3e, so I know there is one for that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Elendur Date : 04-10-07 01:55 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E The decision really depends on your group. If you are to be the DM, and you find a group of players who have no preference, then you should play whichever system excites you most. 1st edition in your case. Or you could try another 'rules lite' system like castles and crusades or True d20. In any event, you set the lead and your players are happy to follow. If however, you find it hard to find players interested in anything besides 3e, or you are curious about it yourself, you can still retain much of the old school flavor of your youth by running converted adventures and throwing out any rules you find cumbersome(maybe the tactical miniatures aspect, for example). At any rate, the group of people you game with is far more important than the system you use. If you get a good group of people who are excited about playing you'll have fun, no matter the rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Immortality Date : 04-11-07 03:10 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Thanks for all the feedback guys. From what I've read, I think I will stick to the old school 1stEd and let the players decide how much they would like to drag in from 3E for their character development - presuming the group I find are that experienced, if they are all noobs, well I guess it wont be too much of an issue. I just received a mint copy of I6 Ravenloft through the mail today! Man, even has that 'new module' smell :) I'm thinking of creating a campaign based around either Keep On The Borderlands or T1 Hommlet to develop the players, with Castle Ravenloft being the penultimate goal. Could be cool. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Varl Date : 04-11-07 10:39 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I'm thinking of creating a campaign based around either Keep On The Borderlands or T1 Hommlet to develop the players, with Castle Ravenloft being the penultimate goal. Could be cool. Psst. Penultimate means next to last (worst), so CR should be the ultimate goal, not the penultimate. ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : havard Date : 04-11-07 11:55 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Psst. Penultimate means next to last (worst), so CR should be the ultimate goal, not the penultimate. ;) Unless the ultimate goal is questing for Immortality! :D Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 04-11-07 06:38 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E One of the charming things about older editions is the fact that you had to make up things on the spot. Many powerful spells and powers were open to interpretation, which I felt added mystery to the game. There's a thread with this very same discussion around here somewhere. This is why core/RAW 3.5 D&D is a rules lawyer's dream! I'll play it if I have too but I prefer 1e and BECMI. But you're right there was a grey area for the older editions where everything wasn't really set in stone and things could be blurred and altered per the DM's taste. It's a lot harder to do this with 3.5. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Dagger4192 Date : 04-11-07 10:10 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E But you're right there was a grey area for the older editions where everything wasn't really set in stone and things could be blurred and altered per the DM's taste. It's a lot harder to do this with 3.5. That's a good point. In the 3rd edition games I DM'd, I noticed the players seemed to know more about it than me and questioned every decision. In 1st edition, I don't recall ever having that issue. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 04-12-07 03:57 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E So, 3rd edition dosen't encourage you to change the rules as you see fit? Actually, it does- it's called "rule 0". As for the "mystery" of it all, even now you know the 1st edition rules and nothing is a huge "wow" type surprise it was the first time you encountered the game. The biggest difference IMO is that in the earlier editions there was "player material" and "DM ONLY material". Now players are encouraged to look at any book. Not that we didn't do that back in the day. We did. We just felt like we were breaking some sort of sacred rule when peeking at DM books. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Immortality Date : 04-12-07 09:40 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Actually, it does- it's called "rule 0". :D ...great, a rule to change the rule... The thing I think I most dislike about what Ive seen of 3E is the monsters seem to be getting ridiculous now as are some of the locations and magical items. Its a lot more fun when a really kick ass monster was a Minotaur, and a +3 sword was an awe inspiring weapon of mass destruction. I really like the artwork on the early books. The DMG and MM2 should be up for some kind of award for cover design. I6 Ravenloft I think is the best cover design Ive seen. The Dragonlance series are pretty cool too. Theres a great cover for Waterdeep and the North (I think its called), with the Beholder on the cover - cool artwork! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Immortality Date : 04-12-07 09:48 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Psst. Penultimate means next to last (worst), so CR should be the ultimate goal, not the penultimate. ;) ...oops, hehe - yeap. Though I guess the Ultimate scenario could be the players take over Ravenloft and wage a mini-war against the Keep on the Boarderlands?? I remember ages ago a group of guys putting together a small army to assault the Keep, sending in an assassin to kill the Castellan. Im pretty sure they got their asses kicked. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : havard Date : 04-12-07 09:52 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E ...great, a rule to change the rule... The thing I think I most dislike about what Ive seen of 3E is the monsters seem to be getting ridiculous now as are some of the locations and magical items. Its a lot more fun when a really kick ass monster was a Minotaur, and a +3 sword was an awe inspiring weapon of mass destruction. A +3 sword is still pretty impressive in 3E. Unless you are of really high level in which it still may be a handy tool, but you are likely to have a +5 sword by now. I don't see how that is so different from how we played older versions of the game. Minotaurs are still fearsome monsters, and you can even make them more powerful by giving them levels. Most of these things have to do with DMing style though, and you can keep magic as rare or as common as you want. The 3E world Ebberron is ofcourse a world where magic is common, but a 3E Greyhawk campaign might be more low magic assuming you wanted it to be so. I really like the artwork on the early books. The DMG and MM2 should be up for some kind of award for cover design. I6 Ravenloft I think is the best cover design Ive seen. The Dragonlance series are pretty cool too. Theres a great cover for Waterdeep and the North (I think its called), with the Beholder on the cover - cool artwork! Yeah, there were alot of good covers in the old books. TSR had alot of amazing artists available back then. OTOH, I fail to take seriously those people who say they prefer the interor art of the original 2E PHB (JEM) to the interior art of the 3E Core books. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Varl Date : 04-12-07 11:14 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E ...oops, hehe - yeap. Though I guess the Ultimate scenario could be the players take over Ravenloft and wage a mini-war against the Keep on the Boarderlands?? I like the tie-in with Castle Ravenloft and the KotB, though I'd run the Keep first and have CR be the end game, with Strahd manipulating and controlling the whole thing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Elendur Date : 04-12-07 11:32 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Its a lot more fun when a really kick ass monster was a Minotaur, and a +3 sword was an awe inspiring weapon of mass destruction. I agree but I don't think that's a function of the rules edition. And we must have had very different 1e experiences. Within a year or so I was fighting gods out of Deities and Demigod's with vorpal swords and staff of the magi. (I was in middle school, I got over it). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : RobertFisher Date : 04-12-07 02:16 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E So, 3rd edition dosen't encourage you to change the rules as you see fit? IME, you get different answers depending upon who you ask. I don't think this matters, though. I don't care whether it is encouraged or not. What matters is that the 3e subsystems are interlocked more than in previous editions. This means there are more changes that are harder to make than there were in previous editions. At least, there are a number of people who have found that to be true, even if there are others who deny it. (The interlocking does have its advantages.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Immortality Date : 04-12-07 06:56 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Coolio, thanks for all the feedback guys. Just to wind up this thread, I think I'll run with my 1stEd stuff, but can ppl recommend any new 3E character archetypes that would work in my B1/I6 campaign, but not be to out of place with 1stEd PHB characters? Also looking for a product that describes city sprawls and local NPCs (there used to be a book called 'City Book: On The Road' which was a universal rpg source book for detailing local inhabitants and npcs - don't remember the publisher). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : longlivelavey Date : 04-13-07 07:40 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E "Also looking for a product that describes city sprawls and local NPCs (there used to be a book called 'City Book: On The Road' which was a universal rpg source book for detailing local inhabitants and npcs - don't remember the publisher)." Have you taken a look at the original "World of Greyhawk" boxed set, or the "Greyhawk Adventures" book? They provide me with a pretty good base to build on. The old issues of Dragon are a good source too. longlivelavey -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Dagger4192 Date : 04-14-07 10:48 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E The biggest difference IMO is that in the earlier editions there was "player material" and "DM ONLY material". Now players are encouraged to look at any book. Not that we didn't do that back in the day. We did. We just felt like we were breaking some sort of sacred rule when peeking at DM books. :D That is an awesome take. I totally agree. When I read the boards for the newer additions, players are constantly talking about which magic items to buy. That was unheard of "back in the day". I didn't dare ask to buy a magic item... you found those in dungeons, not the city market. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Therese404 Date : 04-15-07 03:34 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back Classic 1E vs 3.5E Sad thing is I spent like 800 bucks on 3rd edition books Yep, then 3.5 came out & that's what killed it for me. I was lucky that our game store for the first 2 month was allowing you to trade stuff back in. I began to see the light when after a games night with my husband & some of his old school mate. It took every one 20 minutes to do up a character & we played Hack masters Little Keep, we had a blast. I still purchase new stuff but convert it back. You can purchase most stuff from RPGnow as a pdf. Cheers Therese -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : skathros Date : 04-15-07 08:11 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Not that we didn't do that back in the day. We did. We just felt like we were breaking some sort of sacred rule when peeking at DM books. :D :D I got a good chuckle out of that one. So true. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : hilmarsson_g Date : 04-17-07 08:48 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I actually started out with third-edition, but later experimented with earlier editions after having been exposed to 2E PC adaptations such as the Baldur's Gate series. As far as AD&D is concerned, I think the ruleset is much easier to manage than recent editions, as you simply don't have as many skills, races and classes to keep up with. In this respect, 3.5 is simply a mess to me. (to be fair, I'm sure a lot of players do enjoy the diverse character options...) Personally, I suggest you check out an early '90s publication entitled "Rules Cyclopedia." It basically covers all the core AD&D rules, which more or less saves you the trouble of referencing 5 or 6 different rulebooks. As for adventures, you can find many earlier publications right here on the Wizards site - here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads). Rules Cyclopedia may be a bit difficult to track down, but you can purchase a PDF scan from RPGNow - here (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=1204). USD$6 isn't bad, considering just how in-depth it is. I hope this post was helpful. Considering that I didn't have the opportunity to grow-up with earlier editions, my knowledge is rather limited on the subject. Maybe one day I'll find a group who's into classic Greyhawk campaigning. ... Maybe. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : orgcandman Date : 04-17-07 10:07 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Hi guys - congrats on a brilliant forum! I've recently decided to brush the dust of all my old AD&D books and try to get back into it. After reading through the PH and DMG again, I remember everything I loved about the game when I was a kid. Heres my question, and I apologise if it's been covered 1000 times already in other threads already. I really want to find a group of guys may age (30-40) to start a campaign, but I love the modules I used years ago - Keep on The Borderlands, Pharaoh, Ravenloft, Hommlet etc...basically 1st edition modules and rules. Would you guy recommend biting the bullet and buying all new modules and source books to learn the new 3E system, or staying 1stE (since I own a fair amount of the associated books and modules)?. I've read some of the features and changes in 3E which sound cool, but I have no problem with the original system in 1stE, and since I know and love the 1stE so much, is there really a whole lot more to be gained by upgrading when after all, its the imagination of the DM and players that really make the game. Perhaps someone knows a URL that pin-points rules from 2E & 3E that work well with 1stE? Look forward to you comments. Cheers Oh, PS: Any old school gamers from Auckland in New Zealand interested in hooking up, drop a reply here. 2e/1e are pretty much forward/backward compatible, as long as you stay with core. As far as whether or not its worth getting the 3.5 books, I wouldn't. You can get a really good understanding of the system from d20srd.org or any other place that hosts the srd. The only things you end up missing are protected monsters (mind flayers, and beholders) and experience point progression....which you could just use your own, or figure out some formula. Really, the only thing people liked about B2 IMHO are the caves of chaos, and the hermit encounter. Everything else was anscillary. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : tvknight415 Date : 04-17-07 02:52 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Stick with 1E. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Horemheb442 Date : 04-18-07 06:32 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E The City Books, all 7 or 8 of them, are still around from Flying Buffalo. They are great resources and, I think, generic enough for any FRPG. As far as the original question, do what feels most comfortable to you.:rimshot: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : tenacious_kev Date : 04-23-07 06:59 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Id stick with 1st edition. The new Ravenloft is expanded and it adds alot of extra play, but I still think the 1st edition version is better. 1st edition also has alot of good dungeons, some are converted to 3rd edition, like In Search of the Unknown, White Plume Mountain, Villiage of Hommlet, and Im currently running a party through Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Immortality Date : 05-01-07 08:16 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Id stick with 1st edition. The new Ravenloft is expanded and it adds alot of extra play, but I still think the 1st edition version is better. 1st edition also has alot of good dungeons, some are converted to 3rd edition, like In Search of the Unknown, White Plume Mountain, Villiage of Hommlet, and Im currently running a party through Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. ...cool man, I would be keen to check out some of the conversions. I've been busy scripting a campaign set around The Village of Hommlet/Keep On The Boarderlands, with Ravenloft castle as the ultimate goal, all set to 1stEd and characters around level 1-5....has been going pretty well so far. Once it's done (And if it doesn't suck) I'll post a link to the workings if you're interested. Cheers -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Dwarven Godfather Date : 05-04-07 11:22 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I myself was also big into the 3.x system around $600.00 until I realized that it was getting to big for it's breaches. Every new book coming out had new classes or prestige classes and new things for the players to play around with and it started to turn into another Palladium system book. I also ran across someone who played the system before the group did and I wanted to teach the system to the group, but then we ran into arguments, the group against the one player and I got fed up with the system and now see the light and am back to the 2nd edition books which helps out since most of the stuff I can get my hands on are 1st and 2nd edition and is farely reasonable priced as well instead of an expensive book. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : Sumodawg Date : 05-05-07 07:35 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Why is everyone so concerned about balanced characters?? That was the cool thing about the earlier additions. You ran into a low level wizard and you a fighter. Bomb! You kicked his butt. Same level fighter run into a wizard and you would scream "Momma" in three different languages, especially dragon. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : Hugin Date : 05-07-07 02:30 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Personally, I suggest you check out an early '90s publication entitled "Rules Cyclopedia." It basically covers all the core AD&D rules, which more or less saves you the trouble of referencing 5 or 6 different rulebooks. As for adventures, you can find many earlier publications right here on the Wizards site - here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/downloads). Rules Cyclopedia may be a bit difficult to track down, but you can purchase a PDF scan from RPGNow - here (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=1204). USD$6 isn't bad, considering just how in-depth it is. Just to clarify, the Rules Cyclopedia was a compilation of the OD&D rules sets (i.e. basic, expert, master...) and not AD&D. However, that said, it is one of the best books ever put out for D&D, IMHO of course. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : protonik Date : 05-07-07 03:44 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Thanks for all the feedback guys. From what I've read, I think I will stick to the old school 1stEd and let the players decide how much they would like to drag in from 3E for their character development - presuming the group I find are that experienced, if they are all noobs, well I guess it wont be too much of an issue. I just received a mint copy of I6 Ravenloft through the mail today! Man, even has that 'new module' smell :) I'm thinking of creating a campaign based around either Keep On The Borderlands or T1 Hommlet to develop the players, with Castle Ravenloft being the penultimate goal. Could be cool. Keep in mind that bringing in some things will need a total retooling of how certain things work like importing the skill system means you need to retool the thieves skill system or importing feats means modifying just about everything depending on the feats you import. What I use from 3e is the item creation rules, without the feats, I just say wizards learn to create items of a certain type at certain levels. I think this will help out a great deal. I also allow bonus spells and clerics can spontaneously cast heal (specialty priests can not though). Otherwise my game is going to be 2e with some 1e (monks) and a different hand to hand fighting mechanic. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : protonik Date : 05-07-07 03:53 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E A +3 sword is still pretty impressive in 3E. Unless you are of really high level in which it still may be a handy tool, but you are likely to have a +5 sword by now. I don't see how that is so different from how we played older versions of the game. Minotaurs are still fearsome monsters, and you can even make them more powerful by giving them levels. Most of these things have to do with DMing style though, and you can keep magic as rare or as common as you want. The 3E world Ebberron is ofcourse a world where magic is common, but a 3E Greyhawk campaign might be more low magic assuming you wanted it to be so. Yeah, there were alot of good covers in the old books. TSR had alot of amazing artists available back then. OTOH, I fail to take seriously those people who say they prefer the interor art of the original 2E PHB (JEM) to the interior art of the 3E Core books. Havard You could do that with any monster in 1e and 2e as well though, just generate stats for them and give them class levels. I had many a minotaur mercenary or Lizardfolk druids etc pepper my adventures. As far as +5 swords though, in earlier editions magic really wasn't all that common. You got more potions and scrolls but having a +2 or +3 sword was to really have something special. Magic isn't so common in Eberron though, it is by the book available it is just that magic is used in different ways. I'd dare say that 2e Forgotten Realms was much more magically rich with items and stuff. As far as art, you are sooooooooooo right. The artwork in 2e books seemed very schizoid in the milieu they were presenting. It didn't seem like a consistent world view. 3e has some AMAZING interior art and while the book covers for the core started out cool I'd like to see them get back to more painted covers. I like the design of the FR and Eberron covers though I'd like to see more of the art. Best piece of 3e art IMO is the FR Screen or almost anything Wayne Reynolds does... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : protonik Date : 05-07-07 03:58 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Coolio, thanks for all the feedback guys. Just to wind up this thread, I think I'll run with my 1stEd stuff, but can ppl recommend any new 3E character archetypes that would work in my B1/I6 campaign, but not be to out of place with 1stEd PHB characters? Also looking for a product that describes city sprawls and local NPCs (there used to be a book called 'City Book: On The Road' which was a universal rpg source book for detailing local inhabitants and npcs - don't remember the publisher). Use the 2e Bard, I know it isn't 3e but the 2e Bard is very versatile and can really help in a pinch. Out of 3e I'd suggest finding a way to bring in the sorceror or just use the Sorceror rules for magic users as they are easier to use than the standard wizard, which is the hardest class to learn in my own experience. Barbarians are not all that different from the UA barbarians from what I recall. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : RobertFisher Date : 05-08-07 11:51 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E The artwork in 2e books seemed very schizoid in the milieu they were presenting. It didn't seem like a consistent world view. Not that I'm in the habit of defending the 2e-era art, but that's a feature for a D&D rulebook, IMHO. A "consistent world view" might make sense for a Greyhawk, Dragonlance, or Forgotten Realms book. The art for the core books, however, should give an "anything's possible" feel. (Even if it isn't. ^_^) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Caedis Date : 05-12-07 12:09 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I play 2nd Edition with Players Options. I pick up used 3e books on garage sales or from used book stores here and there and convert the scant tidbits of new game material from them into my game. I also convert info from several other game systems into my game where I need them,(Rifts, Arduin, etc.). If you have found a system you and your players like, stick with it. It is relatively simple to convert info from any game system into your own once you set your mind to it. You are not alone in your desire to remain with the version of the game which you fell in love with. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 05-21-07 06:22 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Hi Immortality, welcome aboard. Hope to hear more from you. As for your position, I can sympathise; my group opted for the 3.0 rules even though I had announced that I was running the classic modules. In the end, I yielded because ultimately it doesn't matter what the system was - as long as the players were having fun. I would have preferred to run the mods as first ed, but hey, what do I know, I'm just the DM. I've found since then that the classic modules have their own feel that seems to transcend edition - show some of the art around and run them faithfully and they'll still feel the same. Run them and just have a Monster Manual handy. The rest you can just make up - but that was what first and second editions were all about, anyway. Enjoy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : Eatable_Dice Date : 05-22-07 11:46 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E One thing that bothers me in 3.5 is the rift between low level and higher level characters. The bonuses stack so high that a 20th level cleric is a walking doom, specially with new rules and feats from other books. Of course that is up the DM to allow those things in his game, but a DM that always frown upon things is soon to find himself alone. I DM a 2 Ed. game and a 3.5 one, and I must agree that combat is much easier in the old edition. Sure, you canīt grapple and throw your enemy on a pit of lava, but in the end, itīs not all that necessary. Plus, there are so many spells nowadays that you have to thoroughly check the character spell lists in order not to have some nasty surprise. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : protonik Date : 05-22-07 12:44 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I DM a 2 Ed. game and a 3.5 one, and I must agree that combat is much easier in the old edition. Sure, you canīt grapple and throw your enemy on a pit of lava, but in the end, itīs not all that necessary. Plus, there are so many spells nowadays that you have to thoroughly check the character spell lists in order not to have some nasty surprise. Yeah you can, you can either follow the horrible grappling rules in the book or make up your own. I'd simply say make an attack roll and if they make the attack do strength checks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 05-23-07 07:07 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Yeah you can, you can either follow the horrible grappling rules in the book or make up your own. I'd simply say make an attack roll and if they make the attack do strength checks. And there we have the ultimate good that comes of 2nd edition in two forms: the mindset that was encouraged to throw the rules out when they didn't 'work' for you and the ingenuity to make up some new ones. I've found the mindset of the 3.0/3.5 drone to be far less flexible than that of those who played 2nd edition - but that is probably an unfair generalisation. But then again, large portions of the modules were left purposefully (I believe) vague to encourage just that sort of thinking. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : RobertFisher Date : 05-23-07 09:50 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Sure, you canīt grapple and throw your enemy on a pit of lava, but in the end, itīs not all that necessary. There are plenty of times in 3e when you can't grapple and throw your enemy into a pit of lava. The only difference is that in 3e there's an attempt to make explicit rules to tell you when it's possible & when it isn't. With the 3e method, though, there's a chance that the results may sometimes seem wonky to the group. When the DM just makes the judgement, he can guarantee that it feels right to the group. It's just simpler to go straight to DM judgement rather that applying the rules & then having the DM vet the results. Of course, in my case, it's also very likely that--running 3e--I'll forget the rules or mess up interpreting them. It's just a lot simpler to consider the situation, consider the arguments of the players, & then make a judgement. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : Eatable_Dice Date : 05-23-07 01:21 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E And that is why I am serioulsy thinking about going back to AD&D 2ed... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : Varl Date : 05-25-07 10:40 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E And there we have the ultimate good that comes of 2nd edition in two forms: the mindset that was encouraged to throw the rules out when they didn't 'work' for you and the ingenuity to make up some new ones. My favorite. I've found the mindset of the 3.0/3.5 drone to be far less flexible than that of those who played 2nd edition - but that is probably an unfair generalisation. I don't think it is. I've heard time and again from fans of 3.0/3.5 how the removal of a rule here or there throws other rules and things out of whack. But then again, large portions of the modules were left purposefully (I believe) vague to encourage just that sort of thinking. That's good game development. Pigeonholing your products into one tightly focused mechanism is not how I'd develop products. Diversity, thy name is prosperity. Unfortunately, we don't see that as often as we should. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : havard Date : 05-25-07 07:19 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I don't think it is. I've heard time and again from fans of 3.0/3.5 how the removal of a rule here or there throws other rules and things out of whack. This is because the 3E system is much less modular than with previous systems. Changing parts of the core system will easily unbalance things. There are advantages and disadvantages to a modular system. The main advantage is that you can add and change things as you see fit. The disadvantage is that most non-modular systems will have simple assumptions on how to deal with any situation. Also, my biggest annoyance with 2E was that everytime I played with a different DM he would have a new set of house rules for even the most basic parts of the game. I found that to be quite frustrating. That's good game development. Pigeonholing your products into one tightly focused mechanism is not how I'd develop products. Diversity, thy name is prosperity. Unfortunately, we don't see that as often as we should. Keep in mind that most other RPGs have had a single mechanic since the 1970s. The D20 mechanic and the integrated skill system are the biggest improvement of D20 over previous edition. Interestingly I dont think these were the features that made the game loose its flexibility, as shown with C&C for instance. I also like the fact that with 3E I am not forced into silly conventions such as no dwarven wizards, level limits, class combinations etc etc. Ofcourse, that is more a question of mindset and can be allowed under older editions as well. For some reason, we never did though... :( -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : Eatable_Dice Date : 05-26-07 06:43 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E However, while you are not forced into "silly conventions", when playing in īcons you have a high probability of finding half-shadow dragon half ogre with a pseudonatural template and warblade levels. To me, both sides of the question comes down to one thing: the DM. If he is good, he will make the game fun for everybody, and that is his job. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : 20102000 Date : 05-26-07 08:09 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E IMHO there are two aspects to rules . The character rules and the action rules. The character rules determine what the character can be. The action rules determine how to adjudicate what the character does. For me the 3rd edition is excellent for action rules and sucks for character rules. If you understand the D20 format, you can change the rules to suit your own house requirments easily. But anything is allowed in character rules , so you get the half shadow, ogre blood, fiendish, warblade/duskblade, with a vampire template. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : havard Date : 05-27-07 09:02 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E If you understand the D20 format, you can change the rules to suit your own house requirments easily. But anything is allowed in character rules , so you get the half shadow, ogre blood, fiendish, warblade/duskblade, with a vampire template You know, I keep hearing this argument from non 3E'ers, but I have never seen it in play. Most people choose the options from the PHB. And as a 1st level character there isn't much more you can add really (templates, weird races and such). The most unusual thing I see is the Dwarf Wizard, which is also quite rare. What I like about the older editions is the reduced amount of rules, not the reduced amount of options. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : 20102000 Date : 05-27-07 04:31 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E What I like about the older editions is the reduced amount of rules, not the reduced amount of options. Havard Thats what I didn't like about 1e, and 2e. The rules didn't alway cover everything. And the DM would be adlibing during a game. Or if you changed DM , there'd be a new set of House rules. However wotc obsession with crunch books, seems to be producing an excesive amount of uneeded rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : Tintagel Date : 05-28-07 02:06 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I think 3.5 is a solid choice if you just say no to additional books and stick with the SRD. Just pick & choose what rules you want to incorporate and have fun. The strongest thing about it is the consistency and stability - so embrace that and stick with core rules. I'm also running T1-4 with my group, but we are converting it to 3.5 as we go. I'm sort of laying the tracks before the horse. It doesn't take very long to make NPCs for me. I pick basic feats and assign max ranks to skills - this lets me max out a number of skills = the class skill points + int. So a rogue with 14 int (10 skill points base) could max 10 skills. No math there really, just "tag" the ones you want maxed. I don't worry about how much gold value in equipment they have - I just eyeball what I think is appropriate - JUST LIKE IN AD&D. See, I think most folks just unconciously turn off their old school D&D flexibility when they start messing with 3.5 and they shouldn't. Assign stats as you see fit, "tag" a few max skills, drop down a couple of easy to use feats, and plop a couple of items on the NPC to make him/her interesting, and play. That's pretty much how I did it in the 80's and 90's. Oh, for anyone that wants new full-color maps of T1-4, at very high resolution (very), click on over to my website. My T1-4 project is a labor of love - and I would like to share it with anyone running that fantastic module. I am trying my best to recreate the material and stay true to every detail described in the flavor text. Have fun, and keep the old modules alive! www.educatedgamer.net/maps.htm (http://www.educatedgamer.net/maps.htm) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 05-28-07 07:07 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E To me, both sides of the question comes down to one thing: the DM. If he is good, he will make the game fun for everybody, and that is his job. No greater wisdom has been spoken than this. :clap: It is essentially the mindset of the DM that will be able to shape the game - provided that the players are on board with it. Our group usually sits down before a campaign and discusses issues such as party cohesion, focus of the game, what the character goals are like and game issues such as dealing with character death, levels of magic and expectations of both the player and DM. We also talk about what we definately don't like in a game and then everyone makes characters together. I've fond that this has created characters that the players are attached to, with motivations and backstory with some give and take on both sides of the screen. That said, it is probably a maturity issue as well. I see the younger gamers playing D&D (which by itself is great) and see that their mindset is "I've min-maxed to do fifty hp damage per strike!"; whilst most of the people I play with (fifteen years older than afore-mentioned younger players) have most passed this. I feel that the system; and by extension the supplements doesn't and don't encourage role-playing. You have to wonder what the balance is between product support and personal responsibility is when you are talking about perpetuating a gaming paradigm. But then again, to be fair, some of the campaigns I ran fifteen years ago were not that great... (I may be tempted to use the word appalling to describe some of them) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : True_Atlantean Date : 05-28-07 07:14 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Oh, for anyone that wants new full-color maps of T1-4, at very high resolution (very), click on over to my website. My T1-4 project is a labor of love - and I would like to share it with anyone running that fantastic module. I am trying my best to recreate the material and stay true to every detail described in the flavor text. Have fun, and keep the old modules alive! www.educatedgamer.net/maps.htm (http://www.educatedgamer.net/maps.htm) Wow. I am running this series at the moment, and these will be fantastic - they really convey a sense of scale. Color me contented. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : Tintagel Date : 05-28-07 08:06 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I'm glad someone else can use them, Atlantean! One of the real challenges with these maps have been fitting in all of the objects in the text descriptions. It makes for some claustrophobic rooms sometimes (how DID they fit that desk, chairs, bed, tables, chest, and cauldron in this 10x10 room???). It also makes for some interesting combat options, like PCs being unable to charge a spellcaster because a table is in the way, or using said table to jump on and get higher ground bonuses. It has made for much more dynamic play for us so far. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : Eatable_Dice Date : 05-28-07 08:25 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E In 3.5 WOTC brought to D&D what they had in Magic. Tons of options, new books every month and rules that would make the game standard enough to be mass-played in world wide campaigns. This sure adds to the gaming community as whole, and helps attract gamers from MMORPGs, who are used to a set of rules and tweaking with them. But I have always played my games with people that I knew or that were introduced to me by them, which means that house rules are definitely not a problem. Itīs a matter of the DM giving the box, and the players thinking outside of it. If the box is made of papier mache or plywood, it does not matter. But the feeling I get is that on 3.5 is that the box is made of solid steel. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : Dontgothere Date : 05-30-07 08:18 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E You know the funny thing about 3E? It offers too much in the way of feats, skills, PrCs, etc. It lacks one integral component. The roleplaying aspect. I do play 3E but we have not gamed in awhile since I am throwing out alot of the useless mechanics that bog gaming down. One of the things I am limiting is miniature usage. I'm going back to drawng X's and O's on erasable mats. I am doing more explaining than drawing. I'm using more visual aids like we did in 2E. I'm basically playing a 2E and 3E hybrid. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : tankschmidt Date : 05-30-07 09:27 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E One of the things I am limiting is miniature usage. I'm going back to drawng X's and O's on erasable mats. I am doing more explaining than drawing. I'm using more visual aids like we did in 2E. I'm basically playing a 2E and 3E hybrid. That's a good idea! I am wrapping up a 3.5 campaign (the last I will ever agree to run!) and in the process of convincing the same group to let me run a C&C game, which requires no battle map, has no AOO's, etc. One of my players says he's worried about not having a map to show where things are, so I might just steal your "X's and O's" system. How detailed have you been using it? I am thinking along the lines of drawing freehand some simple terrain/cover with no hard and fast dimensions and making judgements on the fly. How big a mat do you use? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Author : Tintagel Date : 05-30-07 09:38 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E When I ran my Ravenloft campaign, I really tried to get away from the crunchiness of 3E, and here is one of the techniques I used with regards to minis and the map. We ditched the lined battlemap all together and bought a plain, white, dry erase board from Wal Mart. We still used minis, since they are MUCH easier to move and give the players a better sense of what they are fighting, but the lack of gridlines forced us to eyeball everything and not focus on so much of a chess style of play. It worked wonders, and it required a very simple change. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Author : Eatable_Dice Date : 05-31-07 03:27 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I use a ruler and coloured markers for the players...sometimes a Marlboro box if someone uses "Enlarge"...and thatīs it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Author : Dontgothere Date : 06-04-07 08:55 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E When I ran my Ravenloft campaign, I really tried to get away from the crunchiness of 3E, and here is one of the techniques I used with regards to minis and the map. We ditched the lined battlemap all together and bought a plain, white, dry erase board from Wal Mart. We still used minis, since they are MUCH easier to move and give the players a better sense of what they are fighting, but the lack of gridlines forced us to eyeball everything and not focus on so much of a chess style of play. It worked wonders, and it required a very simple change. I had an old friend whose game I follow--he posts tidbits online--that was not using the miniatures then he tried it and hated it. The minis really slowed the game down and it became a matter of collecting miniatures as opposed to playing the game. I run a Ravenloft game once a year during mid-September to the end of October. I use mainly 2E material for fluff--and 3E for crunch--as 2E Ravenloft is what I started with and it is vastly superior to 3E Ravenloft. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 66] Author : Dontgothere Date : 06-04-07 09:01 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E That's a good idea! I am wrapping up a 3.5 campaign (the last I will ever agree to run!) and in the process of convincing the same group to let me run a C&C game, which requires no battle map, has no AOO's, etc. One of my players says he's worried about not having a map to show where things are, so I might just steal your "X's and O's" system. How detailed have you been using it? I am thinking along the lines of drawing freehand some simple terrain/cover with no hard and fast dimensions and making judgements on the fly. How big a mat do you use? Sometimes I use those chessmaster mats--at least I think that is what they are called--but most of the time the battlespace is small so I just use the grid from the back of the v3.5 DMG with one of those plastic covers over it so I can wipe off the marker strokes. I try only using it when it is needed in the midst of combats. As far as position of the travelling party we use the minis we have OFF OF THE GRID and just sit them in the order the party is travelling in when they enter a dungeon or such. I explain dungeons by way of talking rather than drawing the player draws the map as I explain it to them. Other than that we don't touch the minis or even think about them. If it is a one on one battle we usually don't even draw on the map unless it's needed due to feats or special moves. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 67] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-05-07 03:34 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Thats what I didn't like about 1e, and 2e. The rules didn't alway cover everything. And the DM would be adlibing during a game. Or if you changed DM , there'd be a new set of House rules. But that is exactly what made previous editions great. What makes this hobby great. You don't need rules to cover everything because an intelligent, creative DM--in consultation with his players--can make rulings better & faster than the most comprehesive ruleset. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 68] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 06-05-07 07:03 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E But that is exactly what made previous editions great. What makes this hobby great. You don't need rules to cover everything because an intelligent, creative DM--in consultation with his players--can make rulings better & faster than the most comprehesive ruleset. And the choir stands and shouts AMEN!!!!! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 69] Author : Hairfoot Date : 06-06-07 09:31 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I'll post another vote for Castles & Crusades. I've crossed over after 3 years of playing Lawyers & Accountants 3.5, and it's like trading in a tractor for a dune buggy. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 70] Author : Extempus Date : 06-06-07 10:07 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Thats what I didn't like about 1e, and 2e. The rules didn't alway cover everything. And the DM would be adlibing during a game. Or if you changed DM , there'd be a new set of House rules. However wotc obsession with crunch books, seems to be producing an excesive amount of uneeded rules. If one needs cut-and-dried rules for everything and for every contingency to be covered, why not just play chess instead? That's what made 1e and 2e different and better than 3e and 3.5e... you get to use your imaginations instead of relying on hundreds of rules! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 71] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 06-06-07 11:43 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E You know the funny thing about 3E? It offers too much in the way of feats, skills, PrCs, etc. It lacks one integral component. The roleplaying aspect. I do play 3E but we have not gamed in awhile since I am throwing out alot of the useless mechanics that bog gaming down. I find this funny, since the Roleplaying is not provided by any RPG's rules, but by the players and GM who play the game. I have played several games, Basic D&D, 1E, 2E, AD&D w/ Skills and Powers rules (absolutely hated that, took forever and a day to build a single character who ended up dying in three minutes), 3.0, 3.5, Star Wars d6, Star Wars d20, Shadowrun, Vampire: the Masquerade, and Werewolf: the Apocalypse. I have read countless other RPGs that I never got around to actually playing. In my 17 years of experience there is nothing inherent in an RPG that makes it more or less conducive to roleplaying. Star Wars d6, with it's adventure scripts, cinematic style, and emphasis on roleplaying did not stop any of my players from focusing on the roll-play, or from looting the bodies of dead stormtroopers. I have seen inexperienced Vampire players get bored, and just attack whatever moves, because the GM didn't give them anything interesting to do. And I've seen intense roleplaying in 3.5, often in the wee hours of the morning when we all have to go to work tomorrow, but we're so involved that no one cares. I was not a great roleplayer back in 1990, when I rolled the stats for my first Elf in Basic D&D. It wasn't because of the rules, it was because I was 15, and no idea what to do. Years of reading dragon, talking to more experienced players, and taking a turn behind the GM's screen made me a better roleplayer. As for the rules taking away from your imagination, I vividly remember a player once tell me during a 2E game I was running that stopped when I needed to look something up that I needed to do a better job of learning the rules. Feats have not ruined D&D, nor have sorcerors, mystic theurges, or warforged. If the 3.5 rules really don't appeal to you, then don't use them, but to knock the majority of D&D players, including those who have been playing for decades who like these rules for their simplicity and modularity, as lacking in imagination is the height of chutzpa. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 72] Author : Tintagel Date : 06-07-07 12:29 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I've been quiet for the last few comments, but I have to completely agree with Pacali. I've been playing and DM'ing since D&D Basic, and Roleplaying has always been dependent on the players and DM, not the rules. We do MUCH more immersive, intense, and meaningful role-playing now than we ever did with AD&D. In fact, all we did was hack back then - because we were young. The best campaign I ever ran was a 3.5 Ravenloft campaign that was entirely story driven. Yes, we used feats, prestige classes, and 3.5 combat. We also threw out rules that had negative impact on the flavor of the campaign. 3.5 doesn't pretend to have rules for everything. It mostly has some very consistent core rules for resolving almost everything. Ever notice that AC, skill checks, DCs, saves, and even SR are all based on the same formula? 10+lvl (or 1/2 lvl) + ability mod. Saves are either Good or Poor, BAB is either +1, +3/4, or +1/2. There are not 15 different tables for Combat Matrices, weapon type versus armor modifiers, separate rules for skill checks, separate bonuses for each ability score, separate immunities for different ability scores, comeliness scores, five different saving throw columns, confusion as to which save to make against a magical poisonous wand (spells, wands, or poison?), and strange inconsistencies of monsters with 24 str hitting you for 4 points (monsters had Intelligence, but no other ability scores), different hp calculation after 9th level, and huge tables for maximum ability scores and levels for each class dependent on race and gender, etc.. Yes, 1E was "simpler" except when it wasn't. But it wasn't inherently a magical roleplaying edition either. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 73] Author : Dontgothere Date : 06-07-07 09:57 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I'll post another vote for Castles & Crusades. I've crossed over after 3 years of playing Lawyers & Accountants 3.5, and it's like trading in a tractor for a dune buggy. I can't get into Castles and Crusades so the best that I do is just kind of make a 2E/3.5E hybrid. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 74] Author : Dontgothere Date : 06-07-07 10:03 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I find this funny, since the Roleplaying is not provided by any RPG's rules, but by the players and GM who play the game. I have played several games, Basic D&D, 1E, 2E, AD&D w/ Skills and Powers rules (absolutely hated that, took forever and a day to build a single character who ended up dying in three minutes), 3.0, 3.5, Star Wars d6, Star Wars d20, Shadowrun, Vampire: the Masquerade, and Werewolf: the Apocalypse. I have read countless other RPGs that I never got around to actually playing. In my 17 years of experience there is nothing inherent in an RPG that makes it more or less conducive to roleplaying. Star Wars d6, with it's adventure scripts, cinematic style, and emphasis on roleplaying did not stop any of my players from focusing on the roll-play, or from looting the bodies of dead stormtroopers. I have seen inexperienced Vampire players get bored, and just attack whatever moves, because the GM didn't give them anything interesting to do. And I've seen intense roleplaying in 3.5, often in the wee hours of the morning when we all have to go to work tomorrow, but we're so involved that no one cares. I was not a great roleplayer back in 1990, when I rolled the stats for my first Elf in Basic D&D. It wasn't because of the rules, it was because I was 15, and no idea what to do. Years of reading dragon, talking to more experienced players, and taking a turn behind the GM's screen made me a better roleplayer. As for the rules taking away from your imagination, I vividly remember a player once tell me during a 2E game I was running that stopped when I needed to look something up that I needed to do a better job of learning the rules. Feats have not ruined D&D, nor have sorcerors, mystic theurges, or warforged. If the 3.5 rules really don't appeal to you, then don't use them, but to knock the majority of D&D players, including those who have been playing for decades who like these rules for their simplicity and modularity, as lacking in imagination is the height of chutzpa. Let me clarify: In earlier editions of the game the "roleplaying" was what mattered. In 3.5 the focus is more on new rules, feats, etc. as opposed to in-character development. In essence what I am saying is that the rules slow down the game and take the focus off of roleplaying instead of placing the focus on roleplaying. We don't need a how to roleplay book but we do need books that fuel the imagination as opposed to tons of useless new rules in every splatbook. Storyteller has books like this that focus on developing the character IN THE GAME as opposed to what is on the sheet. Who wants to worry about AoOs when you're in the midst of describing an amazing comabt scene? The rules bog down roleplaying time by placing the focus on the rules. How many times in 3.5 do you have to open the books to see if you can do such and such? Now some say well it depends on your group and you can curb the rules so that you can focus more on roleplaying but if I have to do that why even have the excess rules anyway? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 75] Author : tankschmidt Date : 06-07-07 10:17 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E The difference in my eyes is this: when you're playing 3.x you have to think tactically, and you spend a large portion of the night slogging through combat. With a simpler game like AD&D or C&C, the battle is over faster, leaving more room for all the rest of the good stuff that comes with roleplaying. It's not a question of whether there are rules for roleplaying in a given system - it's a question of where the rules allow you to focus. There are a lot of people (some in my group, in fact) who really like the focus to be on tactical combat, and 3.x fits them like a glove. Me, though, I'd rather be talking in my "dwarf voice" and complaining about the thief's dishonorable tactics as we begin to root through the bodies and plan our next move. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 76] Author : Varl Date : 06-07-07 10:40 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E We don't need a how to roleplay book but we do need books that fuel the imagination as opposed to tons of useless new rules in every splatbook. Even if they did decide to create a Rules for Roleplaying and You rulebook to cover the rules of roleplaying, they'd follow it up with a Rules for Roleplaying and You 2, followed by RfRaY 2.5, errata, and web enchancements, and then scrap it all a few years later for Rules of Roleplaying and You 3, which of course, you'll just have to buy, or somehow you'll be completely unable to roleplay ever again! That about sum it up? ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 77] Author : Dontgothere Date : 06-07-07 12:54 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Even if they did decide to create a Rules for Roleplaying and You rulebook to cover the rules of roleplaying, they'd follow it up with a Rules for Roleplaying and You 2, followed by RfRaY 2.5, errata, and web enchancements, and then scrap it all a few years later for Rules of Roleplaying and You 3, which of course, you'll just have to buy, or somehow you'll be completely unable to roleplay ever again! That about sum it up? ;) What!? Are you blind? Your post was in response to this: "We don't need a how to roleplay book but we do need books that fuel the imagination as opposed to tons of useless new rules in every splatbook." The DMG2 was a book that lended to the imagination--as are many Storyteller or Green Ronin books--as opposed to introducing tons of new rules which were not needed. These books allow the GM and Players to develop the character as opposed to the stats. The stats represent a portion of the character but his morals, history, native land, demeanor, etc. is what makes the character come to life. For the most part 3.5 does not focus on these things and instead have tons of rules that must be implemented to conduct something so simple as a fight. To "sum it up" you have not "summed up" anything except how petty--and off base--your post was. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 78] Author : Dontgothere Date : 06-07-07 12:59 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E The difference in my eyes is this: when you're playing 3.x you have to think tactically, and you spend a large portion of the night slogging through combat. With a simpler game like AD&D or C&C, the battle is over faster, leaving more room for all the rest of the good stuff that comes with roleplaying. It's not a question of whether there are rules for roleplaying in a given system - it's a question of where the rules allow you to focus. There are a lot of people (some in my group, in fact) who really like the focus to be on tactical combat, and 3.x fits them like a glove. Me, though, I'd rather be talking in my "dwarf voice" and complaining about the thief's dishonorable tactics as we begin to root through the bodies and plan our next move. I think you actually got the point I was making as opposed to others whom were playing devil's advocate or just being plain annoying. As far as the issue: Honestly I think the D&D crowd is pretty whiny. I mean looking here you can see players that prefer older editions whining about 3.5 and on the 3.5 boards they are whining about how bad the older editions are. First they argue with those that disagree then they argue with those that agree. Maybe that's why my ignore button is always handy? I say let'em fight it out. What I have been doing--as I said before--is using 2E for fluff and the 3.5 mechanics; albeit toned down some. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 79] Author : Dontgothere Date : 06-07-07 01:11 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I use a ruler and coloured markers for the players...sometimes a Marlboro box if someone uses "Enlarge"...and thatīs it. Simple and smart. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 80] Author : Varl Date : 06-07-07 02:45 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E What!? Are you blind? LOL. You couldn't have missed my point any farther than you did. Well done. Your post was in response to this: "We don't need a how to roleplay book but we do need books that fuel the imagination as opposed to tons of useless new rules in every splatbook." That's what I was replying to! Heh! You know, the whole "as opposed to tons of useless new rules in every splatbook." part? :rolleyes: For the most part 3.5 does not focus on these things and instead have tons of rules that must be implemented to conduct something so simple as a fight. Thanks for that hot tip, Mr. Obvious, because that's exactly what I was referring to. To "sum it up" you have not "summed up" anything except how petty--and off base--your post was. It was a joke! Heh. Lighten up. Go outside and get some sunshine, sunshine. Try reading it from a OOP gamer's perspective and see if you can comprehend its hidden meaning, which I doubt. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 81] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-08-07 09:44 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E The rules bog down roleplaying time by placing the focus on the rules. How many times in 3.5 do you have to open the books to see if you can do such and such? Now some say well it depends on your group and you can curb the rules so that you can focus more on roleplaying but if I have to do that why even have the excess rules anyway? Yes. It depends upon the group & their ability to either not take the rules too seriously or to master the rules well enough that they aren't a burden. I still play 3e when the group wants to & we manage pretty well. Even though I can agree that it is unnecessarily complex as written. For myself, when 3e first appeared, I still had a lot of misconceptions about earlier editions of the game. (I'd left all things D&D behind shortly after 2e appeared.) I thought I understood those games very well, but it turned out there was a deeper--or a different--level that I'd missed. So, for me, that's why I preferred 3e over earlier editions for a while. Once I learned to see the older editions through the eyes of the die-hard grognards, I found a new appreciation for them. & I can still admire what the 3e designers acheived, even if I find it misses the mark for me. Plus, there's some good stuff to steal in there. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 82] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 06-08-07 12:40 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E The rules bog down roleplaying time by placing the focus on the rules. How many times in 3.5 do you have to open the books to see if you can do such and such? Not as often as you think, and sometimes it is better to know that you can easily find the rule you want. Did the 1E DMG even have an index? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 83] Author : SamualT Barronsword Date : 06-08-07 03:41 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Did the 1E DMG even have an index? Yes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 84] Author : Hugin Date : 06-08-07 04:25 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I personally don't think the level of roleplaying has anything to do with the rules system at all. I've played with the same players in both OD&D and 3E and the roleplaying aspect is the same. I've also played with very new players in 3E only who have difficulty with roleplaying - but it isn't due to the rules - it's due to their frame of mind that sees D&D as the pen & paper version of World of Warcraft or NeverWinterNights. But, we're teaching them and they are starting to get the hang of it. There is some validity to the amount of time the rules will consume in a session, but it think this is mainly in the learning phase. If you're only going to play once a month then investing time to learn a more comprehensive system like d20 or AD&D may not be worth it. Try a more rules-light system. Playing every week allows the rules to be learned more quickly and stay refreshed. One thing I will say, IMHO of course, is that the 3E rules are fairly comprehensive, not complex. The foundational concepts are very simple and consistant. But that is exactly what made previous editions great. What makes this hobby great. You don't need rules to cover everything because an intelligent, creative DM--in consultation with his players--can make rulings better & faster than the most comprehesive ruleset. True, but what about a DM that isn't quite so intelligent or creative? Waiting about while the DM and players try to create a fair and reasonable solution isn't fun either. I'll also say that a comprehensive ruleset is pointless if based on complex and inconsistant ideas. I still ad-lib rules in a game if we're not sure and it'll take away from the moment. I usually rule pretty close to the actual rule too because of the consistancy of the system. It also helps that we don't use all the extra books or Prestige Classes, etc. Rules are your tool. If rules run you then you are the tool of the rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 85] Author : Eatable_Dice Date : 06-08-07 07:48 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Simple and smart. Thank you. And the best part is that, whenever somebody needs a smoke, doesnīt have to remember where he had put it, you just pop the cleric and draw a cigarette.:cool: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 86] Author : Optimator Date : 06-12-07 12:04 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Yes, 1E was "simpler" except when it wasn't. But it wasn't inherently a magical roleplaying edition either. I started playing AD&D when I was about... 13 I think, and the above quote is how I feel about converting to 3.x. I think the newer system upgraded pretty much everything that existed into a simpler mechanic. The problem from that, though, is that it added a metric :censored:-load of new rules to the mix. The D20 system streamlined a ton of aspects and I especially enjoy the new skill system. I love being able to know just how stealthy my fighter was, how well my ranger can climb, etc. Another thing, Immortality, is that the opinion of first edition vs. third is going to be skewed in this particular sub-forum. The people in this forum are most likely huge fans of the older editions. This also means that you would probably want and value their opinion moreso than everyone else scattered throughout the forums anyway. Just an aside. My opinion is to stick with the older editions, as long as you can find the players and also because you already have the books. Also, I started playing long before I played any MMORPG and I still prefer the highly sturctured system and somewhat more combat-heavy campaigns. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 87] Author : Vrykolas2k Date : 06-13-07 10:33 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E What!? Are you blind? Your post was in response to this: "We don't need a how to roleplay book but we do need books that fuel the imagination as opposed to tons of useless new rules in every splatbook." The DMG2 was a book that lended to the imagination--as are many Storyteller or Green Ronin books--as opposed to introducing tons of new rules which were not needed. These books allow the GM and Players to develop the character as opposed to the stats. The stats represent a portion of the character but his morals, history, native land, demeanor, etc. is what makes the character come to life. For the most part 3.5 does not focus on these things and instead have tons of rules that must be implemented to conduct something so simple as a fight. To "sum it up" you have not "summed up" anything except how petty--and off base--your post was. Yes... and they sure as hell charged enough for it too, don't you think...? I've been doing all of that stuff for years without shelling out the $40.00 or whatever to have someone else tell me how to do it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 88] Author : Hugin Date : 06-13-07 12:28 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Yes... and they sure as hell charged enough for it too, don't you think...? I've been doing all of that stuff for years without shelling out the $40.00 or whatever to have someone else tell me how to do it. I fully agree, but it certainly isn't new. D&D books have countinuely come out since, well, D&D books first came out. ;) I have spent a whole lot of money over the last near-20 years collecting the OD&D books and products. I have spent maybe $100 on AD&D books and about the same amount on 3E. You buy what you want and leave the rest. Nobody is forcing anybody to spend $40 on a book on how to fight. As a matter of fact, D&D is now cheaper than it ever has been; you can now start playing with absolutely $0 and keep it that way, if you so choose. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 89] Author : Tintagel Date : 06-13-07 01:15 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E SRD FTW! http://www.d20srd.org -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 90] Author : Sumodawg Date : 06-13-07 01:41 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Remember the old saying from 1E: Everything here is OPTIONAL, not written in stone. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 91] Author : Extempus Date : 06-13-07 02:59 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E But does that apply to 3.5e? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 92] Author : Hugin Date : 06-13-07 03:24 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E But does that apply to 3.5e? Sure. Why wouldn't it? Players* are the architects, rules are the tools. *as in, anybody who plays D&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 93] Author : Extempus Date : 06-13-07 09:30 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Of course, players will always do whatever they want, but are the 3.5e rules officially optional like 1e, or not? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 94] Author : Hugin Date : 06-13-07 10:14 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Of course, players will always do whatever they want, but are the 3.5e rules officially optional like 1e, or not? From the 3.5E DMG, The power of creating worlds, controlling deities and dragons, and leading entire nations is in your hands. You are the master of the game - the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun. ... To give you an idea of some of the ways in which you can alter the D&D rules for your own campaign, some sidebars suggest variants that you can adopt or modify to suit your game. They are officially optional and 'houseruling' is officially endorsed. I think this has been a basic tenet of D&D since it's inception and what makes this game so great. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 95] Author : Elendur Date : 06-14-07 10:32 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Yeah I don't know why anyone would try to play with every single 3.5 rulebook out there, it would be a mess. Just like trying to play with every Complete handbook and whatnot from 2e would be. Heck even allowing everything in 1e Unearthed Arcana is usually a bad idea. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 96] Author : Extempus Date : 06-14-07 02:18 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Heck even allowing everything in 1e Unearthed Arcana is usually a bad idea. I hate cavaliers, they are so full of themselves... the only ones we ever encountered were evil, and they were dealt with like all bad guys. Other than that, I rather liked most of what was in Unearthed Arcana (although I never did figure out why the thief-acrobat was introduced)... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 97] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-14-07 02:42 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Yes. Yeah, the 1e DMG had an index. Perhaps not a good one, though. I don't remember often finding it very useful, though. True, but what about a DM that isn't quite so intelligent or creative? Waiting about while the DM and players try to create a fair and reasonable solution isn't fun either. The DM doesn't need an exceptional level of intelligence or creativity. Just about anyone can do it. (So there's a good chance at least one person in every group is up to the challenge.) All you need is a group that is willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Heck, even I can do it, though I won't claim to be good at it. There are only three ways I know that one becomes a better DM: Maturing Encouragement Experience Rules can't make a poor DM a good DM. They can only make a poor DM a poor DM with different rules. & actually, working together to come up solutions is indeed fun. (Heck, isn't that 90% of what a PC party does?) At least, I know more people who find that fun than who find rules arguments fun. (I happen to enjoy rules arguments, but I recognize that many people I play with don't, so I tend to avoid them & make them brief these days.) I started playing AD&D when I was about... 13 I think, and the above quote is how I feel about converting to 3.x. I think the newer system upgraded pretty much everything that existed into a simpler mechanic. I wish to clarify that I tend to speak only about classic D&D v. 3e because I prefer classic to AD&D these days. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 98] Author : Hugin Date : 06-14-07 03:21 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E I wish to clarify that I tend to speak only about classic D&D v. 3e because I prefer classic to AD&D these days. I'm with you on this one. Actually, I agreed with the rest of that post as well. My only point was that using a rules set in which the DM understands "how the rules system thinks" is a great bonus to him. And because everybody thinks differently, not everybody will gravitate to the same system. From this point of view, there can not be an undisputed best system, just preferences according to 'like-mindedness'. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 99] Author : DrowBattlemind Date : 06-20-07 07:00 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Ahh, the wafting scent of nostalgia... where everything looks so much better in hindsight. The 'good old days', indeed. Before I start, let me inform you that I started back in 1982, first with the blue-boxed Expert Set D&D rules, then switched to AD&D (1st Ed.) when the World of Greyhawk boxed set came out. So I might possibly know a wee tad bit of what I'm talking about. So far I've heard tons of why 1st Ed rocked. Let me remind you of why it also sucked (and yes, parts of it did!): Hours spent explaining to newbie players that for some illogical reason, a NEGATIVE AC was good, and positive numbers were bad. Statistic bonuses, each with completely different charts and game mechanics. Saving throws, you had five, many of which were the same exact thing but with a different target number or bonus, when all it really boild down to is whether you dodge the attack/effect (Reflex), bull it out because you were a bad mutha (Fortitude), or ignore it (willpower) Each character class having a different chart for attack progression, making a DM screen an absolute necessity. Secondary skills, but absolutely NO game mechanic for resolving their usage Percentile based thieves skills, while everything else requires a D20 roll Ridiculous Bard class requirements- Fighter, druid, and thief??? and a psionics system that was both underpowered and overpowered simultaneously Yep, nostalgia sure makes everything seem sweeter, doesn't it? 3.5 has munchkin-y problems, yes, but that's a player issue, not a rules issue. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 100] Author : tankschmidt Date : 06-20-07 09:15 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Ahh, the wafting scent of nostalgia... where everything looks so much better in hindsight. The 'good old days', indeed. You raise some good points - certainly classic AD&D had some crazy rules - but your core assumption isn't valid. The game is not nostalgia for us if we still play it. Many of us aren't looking at 1st edition in hindsight, unless thinking about last week's game counts as hindsight. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 101] Author : DrowBattlemind Date : 06-20-07 11:35 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E You raise some good points - certainly classic AD&D had some crazy rules - but your core assumption isn't valid. The game is not nostalgia for us if we still play it. Many of us aren't looking at 1st edition in hindsight, unless thinking about last week's game counts as hindsight. And I still use my old supplements. Like my sig says, Greyhawk's home for me. However, a lot of what i heard on the thread was mostly "1st Ed rules! Third ed bad ju-ju!" or the like. I just felt it was time someone pointed out that 1st ed had its flaws, too, flaws everyone else seemed to be ignoring. I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I've found it rather easy to convert the games from 1st to 3rd when you're conversant with the rule-system. If you still don't like Feats, there's always C&C, but the majority of fantasy RPG players today use 3rd ed, in either of its versions. But really, a lot of what was on pages 1&2 certainly read like what Gygax himself once referred to as "Old Graybeard Syndrome", wherein gamers stuck cantankerously to old systems, despite improvements that came along the way. "Game rules that don't require a working knowledge of latin and a slide rule? Blasphemy!" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 102] Author : Tintagel Date : 06-21-07 09:23 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E As a DM since 1st Ed, an avid house-ruler, and a supporter of 3.5 - I have to agree with Drowbattlemind. Every edition of D&D has made it more accessible and interesting than the edition before. Yes, some things were lost in the progress, but the beauty of D&D is that we can bring many things back. Example: I, for one, do not allow players to buy any magic item they desire simply because they have the cash. They roleplay joining a guild and then gain access to a random collection of goods that other adventurers want to pawn off. They gain access to item crafters who charge high rates. Or they take the feat and have to find the materials. Thus I use the current mechanics for item pricing and crafting, but modified some to move more towards the flavor of 1st and 2nd edition. The only items available to a person with a craft feat, for example, are the most common enchantments (like +1, +2, etc). For things like Boots of Elvenkind or Gloves of Missile Snaring, they have to either find the enchantment recipe or learn it from someone. The point is that with all of the new rules, we should be giddy as schoolkids. Doctors don't complain that there are more medicines on the market. Artists don't complain that they have more colors in their palette. DMs today have more rules to play with if they choose. YOU are the chef. If a recipe calls for walnuts, and you don't like them.... take them out, but don't complain that you have 500 more recipes now than you did 25 years ago. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 103] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-22-07 10:39 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Before I start, let me inform you that I started back in 1982, first with the blue-boxed Expert Set D&D rules, then switched to AD&D (1st Ed.) when the World of Greyhawk boxed set came out. So I might possibly know a wee tad bit of what I'm talking about. Ooo. Look at the pretty pedigree. (^_^) Mine's similar, but I'll forego calling you a "newbie" even though you got such a late start. BTW, I've also played blue-boxed Expert Set D&D this year. Hours spent explaining to newbie players that for some illogical reason, a NEGATIVE AC was good, and positive numbers were bad. Seriously? You know lots of people who didn't get this the first time it was briefly explained to them? Statistic bonuses, each with completely different charts and game mechanics. While I am personally not a big fan of the AD&D ability score charts, I cannot say that they are objectively worse. Trying to shoehorn a single scale onto everything drives some people just as nuts as the different charts drove you. Saving throws, you had five, many of which were the same exact thing but with a different target number or bonus, when all it really boild down to is whether you dodge the attack/effect (Reflex), bull it out because you were a bad mutha (Fortitude), or ignore it (willpower) I will concede this point, although I'm still undecided on it myself. Each character class having a different chart for attack progression, making a DM screen an absolute necessity. I'm horrible at arithmetic in my head. I've used a table when running 3e because it is faster for me. Likewise, people used THAC0 to get by without the table for years. Sure, the 3e way is better, but it's not so much better that my group found it worth importing into our classic D&D game. Oh, & in 3e, the progression for each class is different too. It's just listed in the class description instead of on the attack matrices. Secondary skills, but absolutely NO game mechanic for resolving their usage I hate that when running 3e players spend time pointing points into such skills at the expense of other things. This means that I feel like I have to call for rolls against those skills even though I feel that the application of these skills should require neither rules or a roll. Really. You're a fletcher. Fine. If you take the time & have the proper materials, you make arrows. Why do we need to bother with rules & rolls for this. Let's just say "It's done" & get back to adventuring. Percentile based thieves skills, while everything else requires a D20 roll Is this really such a big deal? Arcane spell failure due to armor in 3e is percentile instead of d20. Does this ruin 3e? Personally, I think the justification for percentile thief skills (the designer thought they deserved finer increments of probability than 5%) is stronger than the justification for arcane spell failure due to armor (the designers wanted to imply that applying modifiers to this roll was a bad idea). Ridiculous Bard class requirements- Fighter, druid, and thief??? and a psionics system that was both underpowered and overpowered simultaneously What to say? Psionics is one of those things Gygax has repeatedly expressed regrets about including. Both the bard & psionics--pushed into the appendices--were as close to being explicitly marked "optional" as anything in 1e was. (Though some will point out that everything was optional.) I'm willing to concede both these points--mainly because I never used either enough to have a strong opinion about them--but certainly you can find much stronger arguments against 1e. e.g. What about the unarmed combat systems? What about the contradictory initiative rules? What about the triple-rate-of-fire during surprise for ranged attacks? Yep, nostalgia sure makes everything seem sweeter, doesn't it? Yeah. Nostalgia was the icing on the cake of my recent classic D&D campaign! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 104] Author : DrowBattlemind Date : 06-22-07 06:11 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Actually, there are only three attack progressions in third ed. First ed had a different one for EVERY character class, each with its own chart/matrix. As for Thac0, that's 2nd edition, which means 3/4ths of the folks who've posted on this board are going to be lumping you in here with me, screaming "HERETIC! BLASPHEMER!" a la the scene at Henry VII's castle in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. So, when they try to burn us both at the stake, you want the mesquite smoke flavor, or the classic barbecue sauce? My point was that there's a lot of myopic "Things were SO much better in them thar olden days, before ye had all them uppity wimmen gamers an' logical, linear game rules" posts going on. A crotchety old-timer mentality that completely ignores the fact that before 3rd ed, female gamers were FAR more of a rarity than they are now, that frankly our hobby (D&D) was dying a slow painful death (While the guys at White Wolf were not only thriving, but getting women to the gaming tables in DROVES), and the new rules set did a LOT to open the game up to folks other than ex-wargamers and adolescent boys. And yes, I've found that amongst newbies, esp., female would-be gamers, the negative AC was a mind-bogglingly-illogical quandry for MANY. And women make up half the human population, so having sensible rules concerning something so integral to the game is not a bad thing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 105] Author : Varl Date : 06-22-07 09:14 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E One way to explain negative AC is that it's a fulcrum system for defense, and it pivots on zero. Another way to think of it is as a set of stairs that descends 21 steps, and you start out at the top step wearing only your clothing. The more armor you acquire and put on, the more steps down you walk. Negative values for ACs also developed a certain mystique about them over the decades, a mystique many of us have taken a liking to (at least I have). As for each character using their own chart for attack progression, and that requiring the use of a DM screen, that's not true for 2e. With THAC0, it's as simple as remembering one number. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 106] Author : WizO_Paradox Date : 06-23-07 12:26 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Having a lower AC being better really didn't make much sense. When your boss at work gives you a bonus, money is added to your bank account, not taken out. A +3 shield really isn't a +3 shield, it's really a -3 shield because it subtracts 3 from your AC. But it was never called a -3 shield, always "A +3 shield bonus that sutracts from your AC", which is backwards and confusing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 107] Author : Varl Date : 06-24-07 01:26 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Having a lower AC being better really didn't make much sense. It's a mechanism for determining defense. How it works is less important than if it works, and negative ACs work. They just don't work the way you like. When your boss at work gives you a bonus, money is added to your bank account, not taken out. You can't compare these two things. Addition will always be easier to calculate than subtraction. I don't think a single, stubborn, diehard grognard in existence would ever refute that, but both addition and subtraction systems are just as viable as mechanics to be used for specific gaming systems as anything else is, like percentile or fractional systems. Don't you wish your boss could reduce the percentile of income tax you have to pay every check? Why do taxes use percentages based on your income? Why don't deductions use an all positive system instead? It'd be easier right!! ;) A +3 shield really isn't a +3 shield, it's really a -3 shield because it subtracts 3 from your AC. But it was never called a -3 shield, always "A +3 shield bonus that sutracts from your AC", which is backwards and confusing. No offense, but that'd only be confusing to a 5 year old that doesn't understand AD&D, and why it uses the AC system it does. The +3 shield is a beneficial item. Regardless of how the system itself functions, you become better protected, whether your AC goes from 10 to 13 or from 10 to 7. P.S. I found a couple quotes a from a few days ago that I thought was a great point regarding how d20 also uses unrelated systems: Percentile based thieves skills, while everything else requires a D20 roll. Is this really such a big deal? Arcane spell failure due to armor in 3e is percentile instead of d20. Does this ruin 3e? :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 108] Author : Gleepwurp Date : 06-25-07 03:09 PM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E One of the things that I like about earlier incarnations of the game is that we just got a lot more play time in during a regular session. Running lower level PCs in 3.5e, we are lucky to get 3 combats done in a 4-5 hour session, assuming we also do other things in game. High level PCs it's not unusual to spend a whole session playing out a big battle. In 1e, in the same period of time, we seemed to be able to handle a dozen fights and do lots of other stuff too. The game just moved at a way faster pace --- I miss that. Of course, we didn't play with all of the official rules on initiative or weapons vs. armor class either... so AD&D purists would have said we "weren't really playing D&D." But we had a lot of fun, so I don't care as much what they think. As far as skills went, we just generated a roll on the fly and rolled it -- usually based upon the PC's stats... so if you were jumping over a chasm, you might have to roll your STR or less on a d20 to make it. The earlier combat system wasn't hard (It might have been less intuitive, but it was never hard) --- new players very quickly learned that rolling high was good and rolling low was bad and the DM took care of most of the mechanics. I had photocopies of the combat charts inside plastic sleeves and would just mark them with china marker as we went along. So if your 5th level fighter was attacking an AC 2 opponent, I'd just put a little checkmark next to the appropriate spot in the matrix. When the fight was over, I'd wipe off the china marker with a napkin. The new system is easier but there is no reason why a clever person couldn't adapt the d20 matrix-less combat system to the older rule set --- just subtract your AD&D AC from 20 for your d20 AC --- so AC 8 becomes AC 12, etc. Using the charts, calculate BAB based on class and level -- if I remember right, fighters get +1 BAB every 3 levels, clerics get +1 every 4 levels, etc. I did this in a one-off game I ran 1-2 years ago and everything I needed to calculate BAB fit on a 3x5 card with about 50% of the card left over. Personally, I'd just roll with the old combat system. These days I play 3,5e with my players because they don't want to play anything else... but when this current campaign wraps up I think I'm switching back to AD&D or 2e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 109] Author : DrowBattlemind Date : 06-26-07 12:23 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E P.S. I found a couple quotes a from a few days ago that I thought was a great point regarding how d20 also uses unrelated systems: Percentile based thieves skills, while everything else requires a D20 roll. Actually, I was the one who posted that, and it pertained to 1st Ed, not 3rd. 3rd Ed uses D20 system thieves skill roles, not percentile. If you're going to quote me, please use the quote in proper context, instead of skewing them to try and prove your own point, please. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 110] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-26-07 10:35 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Actually, there are only three attack progressions in third ed. First ed had a different one for EVERY character class, each with its own chart/matrix. 1e had four. Clerics, Druids, & Monks used the same progression Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, & Bards used the same progression Magic-users & Illusionists used the same progression Thieves & Assassins used the same progression (Although, I am living dangerously posting that without having the DMG nearby to reference. Did I get it right?) As for Thac0, that's 2nd edition, which means 3/4ths of the folks who've posted on this board are going to be lumping you in here with me, screaming "HERETIC! BLASPHEMER!" a la the scene at Henry VII's castle in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. THAC0 appeared in the monster matrix in the back of the 1e DMG. (It didn't explain how to use it, but it was there.) THAC0 was explained in a Mayfair (compatible with AD&D1e) book I have from 1984. I believe in appeared in some 1e TSR modules as well. THAC0 was known & used long before 2e appeared. My point was that there's a lot of myopic "Things were SO much better in them thar olden days, before ye had all them uppity wimmen gamers an' logical, linear game rules" posts going on. Your point would be bolstered if you demonstrated a much better knowledge of the "olden days" than you have. A crotchety old-timer mentality that completely ignores the fact that before 3rd ed, female gamers were FAR more of a rarity than they are now, that frankly our hobby (D&D) was dying a slow painful death (While the guys at White Wolf were not only thriving, but getting women to the gaming tables in DROVES), and the new rules set did a LOT to open the game up to folks other than ex-wargamers and adolescent boys. I was playing RPGs other than D&D or AD&D (or anything White Wolf) during most of the 1990s. So, I'll have to admit ignorance about that. There have been women in every group I've been a part of since c. 1988, even though we didn't play White Wolf games. Even before I left (A)D&D. Looking at 3e, with its focus tilted towards subtactical combat, I find it hard to believe that it has widened the appeal so much. If the appeal is wider, I suspect that it is in spite of the 3e rules. And yes, I've found that amongst newbies, esp., female would-be gamers, the negative AC was a mind-bogglingly-illogical quandry for MANY. And women make up half the human population, so having sensible rules concerning something so integral to the game is not a bad thing. (O_O) Color me surprised. While I've known many people to rant about it, I never knew anyone to have any trouble with it. & I know too many women to be able to agree with your generalization thereof. (^_^) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 111] Author : Varl Date : 06-26-07 11:08 AM Thread Title : Re: Getting back into DnD - 1E vs 3E Actually, I was the one who posted that, and it pertained to 1st Ed, not 3rd. 3rd Ed uses D20 system thieves skill roles, not percentile. If you're going to quote me, please use the quote in proper context, instead of skewing them to try and prove your own point, please. You're right. Sorry about that. But Robert's point regarding the mention of 3e using percentile for arcane spell failure due to armor instead of a d20 still applies, and was a very good point I was backing up, even if I did bungle the context of your earlier reply. Again, sorry. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:16 AM.