howandwhy99
Adventurer
That even in its cluttered, schizophrenic state it has better rules than d20 or 4th edition.
an_idol_mind said:I liked that bards were badasses, and that druids had to duel with their superiors to advance to 12th level and beyond.
Grazzt said:Assassins too. Rather, you had to assassinate the level 14 assassin to achieve 14th level. And then assassin the level 15 assassin (Grandfather of Assassins) to achieve level 15, IIRC.
an_idol_mind said:Something else I like, which I believe was in 1st edition: paladins who have to tithe to their church and who can't own more than 10 magical items.
A lot of the things I like about AD&D involve the restrictions built around specialist classes. I like the idea that paladins, druids, assassins, and the like are more powerful than a fighter, cleric, or thief, but also face some unique challenges that make advancing in that path very difficult. I totally understand why such conventions were considered bad game design later on, but they were balancing mechanics that worked well in the type of games I enjoy running.
Everything else already mentioned, but especially the conditions and restrictions on races and classes. For me this added to the game because it meant that everyone and everything was truly different. I have always hated the generic "anyone can do anything" attitude of 3E. I know some love it, but for me it is just a big wimp out. In AD&D you had to "role" play a lot more because it was so open ended on rules and because the Human Paladin was So different than the Dwarven fighter that they never crossed over each other even being cousin classes. Aside from my beloved Cleric; Assassins, Paladins, Illusionists, Druids, and a Dragon magazine variant called the Archer-Ranger were my favorite classes to play because they were harder and different.Ulrick said:I also like that in order to be in one of these specialized classes, you had to have great abilities scores. To be a paladin, you needed a 17 in charisma. Using the standard 4d6 drop the lowest method, this made characters like this rare...as they should be.
In Unearthed Arcana, the paladin became the subclass of the Cavalier, which had some potent special abilities, but was balanced with more restrictions--like refusing to wear certain types of armor and bypassing +3 chainmail for a suit of platemail. Or my favorite, in battle, the Cavalier HAS to charge the strongest looking opponent. If he can't directly get to the opponent, he HAS to cut his way through. Oh, and the Cavalier doesn't get a 10% XP bonus for having high abilities.
And then you have the Barbarian in UA, who has all kinds of cool abilities. However, going up in levels will take a long time...starting at 6,000 XP to reach 2nd level!
This is part of what I like about 1st Edition, you may play specialized character, but it comes with cost. Yet it add flavor to the game.
Ulrick said:I also like that in order to be in one of these specialized classes, you had to have great abilities scores. To be a paladin, you needed a 17 in charisma. Using the standard 4d6 drop the lowest method, this made characters like this rare...as they should be.