1.5, 2.5, 3.5, forked from: Evolution of the Fighter

[M.L. Martin]

Forked from: Evolution of the Fighter

I'm having trouble remembering how UA changed the rules, rather than added new rules (new classes, etc). Help me out here. 3.5 redesigned the ranger, for instance. 1E made the paladin a subclass of the cavalier rather than the fighter, but did not change any of its abilities. What examples am I missing?


I don't recall UA being much more than a bunch of new races, classes and spells. Now if you want to get into OA, DSG and WSG, which introduced non-weapon proficiencies, you might start to get into 1.5 territory.

Personally, I do think of Unearthed Arcana as 1.5, not so much for what it did, but for how other products reacted to it. My rule of thumb: A new sub-edition is created by products when future products begin to assume their use or availability in gameplay.

By this rule, UA counts as 1.5 (or maybe 1.25) because later 1E materials began to assume it was 'core'. Did that ever happen with the DSG or WSG? The Player's Option series, by contrast, does not count as 2.5, but is rather a supplemental/spinoff version of the game, because only one, specially marketed product built on those rules. Similarly, Oriental Adventures wouldn't count as a '1.5' or '1.75' because the rules from that book were only referenced in a specific subline. However, a case could be made for a '2.25' edition springing from the addition of the Tome of Magic, Complete Psionics Handbook, and Monstrous Manual, since many later products assumed those materials were in use in a game.

Thoughts?

 

[Crothian]

What 1e books assumed people were using UA?

 

[Serendipity]

Purely as a point of nomenclature (obviously there was no declared 1.5 ruleset) I have always tended to divide the books between those released during Gygax's tenure on the game (whiich is up to and including UA) and those after (the Survival Guides, pro'lly a book or two I'm forgetting). They *feel* different to me, and always have.
Moreover, personally,the Survival Guides seemed very much the lead in to 2e IMHO.

 

[M.L. Martin]

What 1e books assumed people were using UA?

My knowledge of 1E is limited, but I do know that both I10 Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill and OP1 Tales of the Outer Planes include characters based on UA rules. What would have been really confusing is that at least a couple of those characters were paladins with the new benefits in stat increases granted to cavaliers. How the heck is someone with the PH supposed to know what a 16/10 Dexterity means?

 

[Remathilis]

I can't address UA as 1.5, but I can talk a little about Player's Options as "2.5".

The Player's Option Line (Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, Spells & Magic) have some large overlap. S&P assumes your using C&T's unarmed combat system and weapon mastery; S&M has a section on using character points. However, even with all the massive changes (many of which show the direction 3e would develop in) only one other product ever assumed the PO rules would be used, the module Gates of Firestorm Peak. All other TSR books and supplements still defaulted to the the Core Rules + PHBR/DMGR series.

(There was heavy support for PO in Dragon at the time, as well as support from the Core Rules 2.0 CD and a few references in DM Options: High Level Campaigns which was developed at the same time).

The sole exception to this was Psionics. The revised psionic system (which included the famously bad idea of Mental Armor Class and Mental Thac0) was used in the revised Dark Sun book (the Will & the Way) as well as the revised Ravenloft book (Domains of Dread). Since Psionics was never core (and very red-headed in 2e) such references to the revised system was easy to include or ignore.

Additionally, all the rules were presented "buffet" style; it was quite easy to use elements of the PO line (character points, spell points, weapon mastery, etc) without using the rest of the PO line. While there was some crossover, it was generally very easy to ignore. I knew DMs who used character point creation but not C&Ts wonky initiative system, for example.

On the whole, the PO line is hard to call "2.5". If you used all the optional rules presented (Phase-based initiative, weapon mastery, sub-ability scores, character points, spell points, and the critical hit charts) you were playing a VERY different game than if you stayed with the PHB and Complete X Handbook line. However, the game never really used these options or even assumed them. Because of this, I think the 2.5 title is a little too disingenuous; unlike 3.5 (which revised the core and formed a baseline for future supplements) PO only added a bunch of radical options (and thus, was closer to 3.5's Unearthed Arcana than the v 3.5 rulebooks).

EDIT: There was a fleeting reference to it in World-Builders Guidebook (specifically, the revised weapons/armor by historic age charts) but it was pretty self-explanitory in the WBG and easy to figure out without the PO books.