* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : i was wondering.... Started at 04-30-07 10:08 PM by jessewik Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=839079 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : jessewik Date : 04-30-07 10:08 PM Thread Title : i was wondering.... I was wondering how different the 1e is from the 3.5e.how does the combat differ,and what classes were there?That sort of stuff. I might actually run a 2e campaign some time,both to see how it was played when it was first invented,and because it would be nice to have a dnd session that isn't bogged down with rules. thanks in advance:) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : RobertFisher Date : 05-01-07 10:18 AM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... I was wondering how different the 1e is from the 3.5e.how does the combat differ,and what classes were there?That sort of stuff. I might actually run a 2e campaign some time,both to see how it was played when it was first invented,and because it would be nice to have a dnd session that isn't bogged down with rules. thanks in advance:) Differences between 1e (w/o supplements) & 3.5e: Each ability score had its own table of ability score based modifiers. Since not everything was shoe-horned onto a d20 roll, there were different modifiers for different things. You often needed a pretty high score to have even a +1 for most things. Classes (Subclasses): Cleric (Druid), Fighter (Paladin, Ranger), Magic-user (Illusionist), Thief (Assassin), Monk. Each class had it's own XP/level progression. The progressions tended to follow more of a double-what-you-needed-for-your-last-level pattern up to about 9th level. HD maxed out at around 9th level. (Additional levels would only give a small, fixed number of hp.) The word "demihuman" distinguished elves, dwarves, gnomes, & halflings from "humanoids"--goblins, orcs, &c. Multiclassing was limited to demihumans. The classes were choosen at character creation & could not change. Humans could switch classes through a rule later known as dual-classing. There were class & level restrictions for demihumans. No skills or feats. Fewer feat-ish class abilities. There were weapon proficiencies. (If you weren't proficient in a weapon, you took a penalty to attack roll.) Thieves also had some skills exclusive to them. A thief's ability with those skills depended upon his race, ability scores, & level. (No player input.) Combat rounds were 1 minute. Weapons did different damage against Large creatures. (All larger-than-man-sized creatures were Large.) My group played combat somewhere between the Basic Set & AD&D rules. Much simpler than 3e in most ways. The AD&D rules as written could be pretty complex if you explored all the nooks & crannies. There were a couple of rules in the Attack of Opportunity vein, but much more straightforward. MUs & Clerics got fewer spells. Though Clerics could get bonus spells based on their Wisdom score. On the other hand, even low-level spells tended to be more powerful. No Cleric spheres. The spells have "schools" listed, but the rules didn't use them at all. Difference in spells are too numerous to really get into. A couple of high-lights: Invisibility had an indefinite duration. Hold Person was actually useful. Monsters had minimal stats that were different from PCs. Instead of having a Strength score & a modifier to damage based on it, a monster would just have a damage-roll listed. Those are the first things that come to mind. Check out Osric (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/) as it captures most of the essentials of 1e, IMHO. Any specific questions? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Solaris Date : 05-02-07 07:58 AM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... I might actually run a 2e campaign some time,both to see how it was played when it was first invented If you want to see how it was played when it was first invented, why would you choose a ruleset two versions removed, published 15 years later, and written by a different author? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : atlarman Date : 05-31-07 08:55 AM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... If you want to see how it was played when it was first invented, why would you choose a ruleset two versions removed, published 15 years later, and written by a different author? only 3 words spring 2 mind,"OUT OF PRINT!" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : stefan_mi Date : 05-31-07 10:21 AM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... There are still plenty of rules in 1e, 2e and "Dungeons and Dragons" and if you play using all of them (which I never have) you will still have a fairly complex game -- especially if you play using all of the supplements produced for 2e (apparently there were a lot) or all of the classes and additional rules availible via Dragon Magazine and other sources. There was also a lot more variation in individual gaming styles -- probably because all of the rules discussion and explanation that is available via the internet wasn't around. In 1979 you could send a self addressed, stamped envelope to TSR and wait for a reply; we never did, however... if we didn't like or understand a rule we just changed it according to the DMs judgment. I think a lot of people playing D&D today wouldn't like that system. There was a lot of individual variation. In addition to DMing my own group, I played in several others and no single group did things 100% the same way. The advantage I had in DMing 1e in it's heyday is that I played 1e for a really long time, and there were often years between new rule books being issued. By the time the 1e DMG was finally in print, I had already been playing for years. As it is now, with my adult life and responsibility, I don't have the time to read all of the new 'complete' line of books that Wizards seems to be pumping out... part of the advantage is that when I was a young kid and the 1e books were still in print, I still had time to read them. The printing industry has had a complete technological overhaul since the late 70s - early 80s, and today books can go from manuscript to press in a fraction of the time it took 20-30 years ago... and correcting errors or making changes is much easier and cheaper... today a book can go to print in a fraction of the time it could back then and the setup costs and distribution costs are friendlier to much smaller print runs. There were a lot of rules that seem strange to players today -- in many ways the player characters seem less customizable as far as skills and abilities than they do in 3.5. The range of classes are much smaller and certain races cannot be certain classes and vice versa... no dwarf wizards, no halfling monks, etc. Obviously, no feats. There were some pretty rudimentary attempts at skill systems -- we never used them. The game was also a lot deadlier. If you went to 0 hit points you were usually dead -- we had a rule that an emergency administration of healing might save you if given in a couple of rounds, but I think that was a house rule; I don't think it was official. Characters couldn't make magic items until they were of very high level. Most monsters didn't have class levels --- but as a DM I remember tossing vampires with magic user ability or cleric ability at my players and everyone was still terrified of the lich. The 1e and 2e core books (PHB, DMG and MM) are usually availible pretty cheaply via ebay and similar sources. Have fun and good luck! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 06-02-07 11:16 PM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... Just want to correct a few mistakes. Differences between 1e (w/o supplements) & 3.5e: Each ability score had its own table of ability score based modifiers. Since not everything was shoe-horned onto a d20 roll, there were different modifiers for different things. You often needed a pretty high score to have even a +1 for most things. Correct, in that in 3.5 all ability score modifiers scale the same, whereas in 1E (and 2E) a 15 DEX and a 15 CON were not equivalent. Classes (Subclasses): Cleric (Druid), Fighter (Paladin, Ranger), Magic-user (Illusionist), Thief (Assassin), Monk. Each class had it's own XP/level progression. The progressions tended to follow more of a double-what-you-needed-for-your-last-level pattern up to about 9th level. Correct, with the exception of Hierophant Druids, who had a completely different XP progression. HD maxed out at around 9th level. (Additional levels would only give a small, fixed number of hp.) The word "demihuman" distinguished elves, dwarves, gnomes, & halflings from "humanoids"--goblins, orcs, &c. Multiclassing was limited to demihumans. The classes were choosen at character creation & could not change. Humans could switch classes through a rule later known as dual-classing. In my experience no one ever met the high requirement of "dual-classing", and while anyone who could "multi-class" did so. DMs often ignored basic rules contradictions about multi-classing, like letting Fighter/magic-users cast spells in armor, or letting the Fighter/Cleric use an edged weapon. There were class & level restrictions for demihumans. Which, again, in my experience, did not deter anyone from playing an Elf, Dwarf, Lizardman, Alaghi, Centaur, Thre-Kreen, Lycanthrope, Half-Drow or Fremlin. (Actually, I don't remember any Fremlins, but I did see PCs of all of the other races while playing 2E. I didn't see too many humans. Centaur, Alaghi and Fremlin were from Complete Book of Humanoids, Lizardman from Spelljammer, Thre-Kreen from Dark Sun, and the Lycanthrope was from a special Forgotten Realms supplement a player showed me, and which I allowed in my Ravenloft campaign.) No skills or feats. Fewer feat-ish class abilities. There were weapon proficiencies. (If you weren't proficient in a weapon, you took a penalty to attack roll.) Thieves also had some skills exclusive to them. A thief's ability with those skills depended upon his race, ability scores, & level. (No player input.) There are still Weapon Proficiencies in 3.5, and you still get -4 to your attack roll if you pick up a weapon you aren't proficient with. The difference is that Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians and Rangers get proficiency with Simple and Martial Weapons as a class ability, Rogues with Simple and roguish weapons, Monks with monk-weapons, and Sorcerors with simple weapons. If a player wants to be proficient with an unfamiliar weapon it costs a feat. This has the benefit of not requiring a 1st level character to decide whether to be proficient in a cheap weapon like a sling, or a decent weapon like a composite longbow that they have no way of affording until the 3rd adventure, but that they can't become proficient with until they reach 4th level. Combat rounds were 1 minute. Weapons did different damage against Large creatures. (All larger-than-man-sized creatures were Large.) My group played combat somewhere between the Basic Set & AD&D rules. Much simpler than 3e in most ways. The AD&D rules as written could be pretty complex if you explored all the nooks & crannies. There were a couple of rules in the Attack of Opportunity vein, but much more straightforward. MUs & Clerics got fewer spells. Though Clerics could get bonus spells based on their Wisdom score. On the other hand, even low-level spells tended to be more powerful. No Cleric spheres. There are no cleric spheres in 3.5 either. :) (There are domains). The spells have "schools" listed, but the rules didn't use them at all. Difference in spells are too numerous to really get into. A couple of high-lights: Invisibility had an indefinite duration. Hold Person was actually useful. Monsters had minimal stats that were different from PCs. Instead of having a Strength score & a modifier to damage based on it, a monster would just have a damage-roll listed. With the exception, of course, of vampires and giants who did have Str scores. You left out the attack tables. And that AC counted down from 10 instead of up. And that there were game balance issues, like the poor playtesting of the Complete Book of Humanoids. (Never allow Alaghi PCs. Never!) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Solaris Date : 06-03-07 05:22 PM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... only 3 words spring 2 mind,"OUT OF PRINT!" Second Edition is out of print too. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : atlarman Date : 06-03-07 08:54 PM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... Second Edition is out of print too. yep! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : RobertFisher Date : 06-05-07 03:24 PM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... Just want to correct a few mistakes.Differences between 1e (w/o supplements) & 3.5e: Note the words of mine you quoted above. Correct, with the exception of Hierophant Druids, who had a completely different XP progression. I don't remember this different XP progression for Hierophant Druids being in my 1e PHB, DMG, MM, or D&DG. In my experience no one ever met the high requirement of "dual-classing", and while anyone who could "multi-class" did so. DMs often ignored basic rules contradictions about multi-classing, like letting Fighter/magic-users cast spells in armor, or letting the Fighter/Cleric use an edged weapon. I made no comment on how often these rules were used. When I played 1e, dual-class PC were rare & multiclass were common. We pretty much followed the rules on F/MU wearing armor & F/C using edged weapons. I don't recall any contradictions in these areas. Which, again, in my experience, did not deter anyone from playing an Elf, Dwarf, Lizardman, Alaghi, Centaur, Thre-Kreen, Lycanthrope, Half-Drow or Fremlin. (Actually, I don't remember any Fremlins, but I did see PCs of all of the other races while playing 2E. I didn't see too many humans. Centaur, Alaghi and Fremlin were from Complete Book of Humanoids, Lizardman from Spelljammer, Thre-Kreen from Dark Sun, and the Lycanthrope was from a special Forgotten Realms supplement a player showed me, and which I allowed in my Ravenloft campaign.) Again, no correction necessary, as I said nothing about these issues. One of the things I always have disliked about 1e was that there were never enough human PCs in my groups for my taste & that the level limits were meaningless because my groups rarely got near those limits. There are still Weapon Proficiencies in 3.5, and you still get -4 to your attack roll if you pick up a weapon you aren't proficient with. The difference is that Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians and Rangers get proficiency with Simple and Martial Weapons as a class ability, Rogues with Simple and roguish weapons, Monks with monk-weapons, and Sorcerors with simple weapons. If a player wants to be proficient with an unfamiliar weapon it costs a feat. This has the benefit of not requiring a 1st level character to decide whether to be proficient in a cheap weapon like a sling, or a decent weapon like a composite longbow that they have no way of affording until the 3rd adventure, but that they can't become proficient with until they reach 4th level. Where's the correction? I never said 3.5 didn't have weapon proficiencies. I said that 1e didn't have feats. Since weapon proficiences are either class features or feats in 3e, I pointed out that weapon proficiences were there even without feats. There are no cleric spheres in 3.5 either. :) (There are domains). (^_^)(9_9) And that AC counted down from 10 instead of up. And that there were game balance issues, like the poor playtesting of the Complete Book of Humanoids. (Never allow Alaghi PCs. Never!) AC is basically the same despite the cosmetic change. More significant were the kinds of armor available & their prices. I don't think we'll find a lot of consensus on game balance issues no matter what edition we want to discuss. In my experience, what is a game balance issue for one group is not for another. The Complete Book of Humanoids clearly falls outside of my "1e (w/o supplements)" limitation on my comments. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Solaris Date : 06-06-07 08:54 PM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... I might actually run a 2e campaign some time,both to see how it was played when it was first invented If you want to see how it was played when it was first invented, why would you choose a ruleset two versions removed, published 15 years later, and written by a different author? only 3 words spring 2 mind,"OUT OF PRINT!" Second Edition is out of print too. yep! Then I'm afraid I've missed your point. Why is "OUT OF PRINT!" a reason to try 2e instead of original D&D, when the goal is to see how it was played when it was first invented? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 06-06-07 11:26 PM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... Then I'm afraid I've missed your point. Why is "OUT OF PRINT!" a reason to try 2e instead of original D&D, when the goal is to see how it was played when it was first invented? I all you want are the rules, why don't you download a copy from Paizo and print it out on your computer. In fact, since it's $4.00 for an endless number of downloads of each file, go nuts: print out a copy of 1E, 2E, Skills and Powers, and for fun the SRD and compare them. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Solaris Date : 06-07-07 12:56 AM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... I all you want are the rules, why don't you download a copy from Paizo and print it out on your computer. In fact, since it's $4.00 for an endless number of downloads of each file, go nuts: print out a copy of 1E, 2E, Skills and Powers, and for fun the SRD and compare them. Huh? The original poster said he was thinking of trying Second Edition as a way to find out what the game was like when it was originally invented. I asked why he would do that instead of playing original D&D. Someone else said "OUT OF PRINT!" I questioned what that had to do with it, since Second Edition is also out of print. And your reply is that I should buy some PDFs? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : tankschmidt Date : 06-07-07 10:20 AM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... print out a copy of 1E, 2E, Skills and Powers, and for fun the SRD and compare them. Skills and Powers... Yuck. Combat and Tactics has got to be the worst pre-3.x D&D product ever released. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Elendur Date : 06-07-07 11:58 AM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... Yes, I recommend the 1e players handbook over 2nd edition, as it was written by Gary Gygax. While not the original game you are still getting it presented by the original author of the game. I find the 2e PHB and DMG terrible in both presentation and rules, but that's just my opinion. Many people love it, and there certainly is a lot of product for it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : tankschmidt Date : 06-07-07 12:55 PM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... Yes, I recommend the 1e players handbook over 2nd edition, as it was written by Gary Gygax. While not the original game you are still getting it presented by the original author of the game. I find the 2e PHB and DMG terrible in both presentation and rules, but that's just my opinion. Many people love it, and there certainly is a lot of product for it. Along these lines, if you are trying to decide whether to run a 1st edition or 2nd edition game, consider whether you would want to use published adventures. 1st edition published adventures still rank among the best ever - Keep on the Borderlands, Sinister Secret at Saltmarsh, Isle of Dread, and Dungeonland spring to mind. A lot of 2nd edition adventures were of lower quality. Some were downright railroad-fests, where the PC's had little to no bearing on the outcome of the game. The Marco Volo trilogy comes to mind as one of the worst. Although, come to think of it, converting 1st edition adventures to 2nd edition is pretty trivial and can be accomplished in a matter of minutes. That's one of the nice things about the earlier editions - there was no delicate system of balance to be offset by the slightest change. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Prof. Pacali Date : 06-08-07 12:45 PM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... Huh? The original poster said he was thinking of trying Second Edition as a way to find out what the game was like when it was originally invented. I asked why he would do that instead of playing original D&D. Someone else said "OUT OF PRINT!" I questioned what that had to do with it, since Second Edition is also out of print. And your reply is that I should buy some PDFs? If the original poster is interested, there are still copies floating around on eBay. There are also PDFs of the 1E rulebooks for sale. I agree that a PDF is not the ideal format, but that is the simplest solution if he wants to run an earlier edition of AD&D. I did not mean that you should do it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : tenacious_kev Date : 06-08-07 03:22 PM Thread Title : Re: i was wondering.... I find the 2e PHB and DMG terrible in both presentation and rules, but that's just my opinion. Many people love it, and there certainly is a lot of product for it. Agreed. I dont care much for my second edition books. Along these lines, if you are trying to decide whether to run a 1st edition or 2nd edition game, consider whether you would want to use published adventures. 1st edition published adventures still rank among the best ever - Keep on the Borderlands, Sinister Secret at Saltmarsh, Isle of Dread, and Dungeonland spring to mind. A lot of 2nd edition adventures were of lower quality. True. Tomb of Horror, Ravenloft, Queen of the Demonweb Pits. All excellent modules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:21 AM.