Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Toric_Arthendain" data-source="post: 5848272" data-attributes="member: 9833">I don't use "to hit vs. AC" tables.  I don't use weapon speed other than to break initiative ties.  There is no way I'd ever write 100 pages of house rules.  The whole idea for me with running 1e is to get away from huge rulebooks.  Writing 100 pages of house rules constitutes a huge rulebook when added to the rules as written.  I do indeed have 3 pages of house rules.  Is EVERY possible situation covered in those house rules?  Absolutely not.  But the most important stuff that my players need to know is covered.  There is still plenty of room for handwaving and DM fiat.I will only say that I much prefer the players to tell me where or what they are searching and how they are doing it than relying on a Search skill check to accomplish the same thing.  I understand that in 3e you can require the player to be explicit before the skill check but I prefer the "tell me what you are looking at and where you are looking and I tell you what you find" method, eliminating the rolling of dice.  That is not to say that I haven't tossed dice to determine if the PCs find something.  There is a mechanism for that in 1e for finding secret doors for instance.  I just prefer to allow player ingenuity to stand in place of rolling dice for searching whenever possible.Sure, if the DM has given out too much magic, or too much wealth.  But in general, I don't see it.  A 10th level 3e PC vs. a 10th level 1e PC, there is no contest.  The base 3e PC is far more powerful.  Whether the 3e PC needs to be more powerful because the opposition he faces is more powerful as well is an argument for another time.Then you are far better at this than I am.  1e prep for me is infinitely faster.  I can stat up an NPC in 1e in minutes.  In 3e, if I need an NPC enemy, I have to build him like a PC in order to make sure he is a sufficient challenge for the group.  He needs feats, skills, spells, equipment, just like the PCs have.  In 1e, I can assign attributes, hit points and note equipment and class abilities and spells and I'm done.  I don't have to spend time grabbing feats, etc.  That is just one example that sticks out for me.I disagree.  The stat blocks I am referring to are those in published modules.  In 1e, they are as simple as:Worker Ants (AC 3, HD 2, hp 8 each, MV 180 ft., #AT 1 bite, D1-6, AL N).In 3e they look more like this:Ogres: CR 3; Large Giant; HD 4d8+11; hp 29; Init -1;Spd 30 ft.; AC 16, touch 8, flat-footed 16; Base Atk +3;Grp +12; Atk/Full Atk +8 melee (2d8+7/x2, greatclub) orjavelin +1 ranged (1d8+5/x2, javelin); Space/Reach 10ft./10 ft.; SA –; SQ Darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision; ALCE; SV Fort +6, Ref +0, Will +1; Str 21, Dex 8, Con 15,Int 6, Wis 10, Cha 7.Skills and Feats: Climb +5, Listen +2, Spot +2;Toughness, Weapon Focus (greatclub).Possessions: greatclub, dagger, javelins (4), hidearmor, 10 gp.You can find examples of this by comparing modules side by side.  Stat blocks are larger nearly every time in 3e modules as opposed to 1e.  There is more to keep track of after all because the rules are more complex.  Not just one AC but several (touch, flat footed), Space/Reach, Saves (which in 3e are easier because I can look at the monsters hit dice and compare to my DM screen for a Fighter of that level and they don't need to be in the stat block), Feats and Skills, etc.  And if I were to post comparisons of NPCs rather than monster stat blocks, again 3e blocks are much longer and more complex.  If you could find a stat block in 3e that was shorter than a stat block in 1e, in my experience it would be the exception rather than the rule.Maybe, but not something I'm willing to speculate on further because I don't have evidence of this one way or the other.Woo hoo!  We finally agree on something! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I hope you mean the voice of inexperience with regards to my understanding of your game.  I have plenty of experience with D&D.  I've been playing D&D since 1979.  Started with 1e, played some Basic/Expert back in those days as well.  Move to 2e in the late 80s.  Move to 3e when it was released and then to 3.5 and finally Pathfinder before moving back to 1e last summer.  I've played and run every edition of D&D save for OD&D and 4e.  I've DM'd far more often than played, probably about a 70/30 or 80/20 split over the 33+ years I've been playing.As far as convincing you that you didn't experience something, that is far from what I am trying to do.  I don't expect to convince you of anything.  I have already stated previously that "to each his own" with regards to editions of D&D.In my opinion AND in my experience.  I disagree about 1e generating just as big hit and damage bonuses as 3e.  That is simply not the case.  I ran a campaign of 3.5 for my group four or five years ago that went from level 1 to 11.  By the time the ranger in the party was level 11, he was +20 to hit with his first arrow (attack bonus, Dex bonus, feats, magic, etc.).  And because of his level and feat combinations, he could fire multiple arrows every round at slightly lower bonuses from rapid shot, manyshot, etc.  There is no way an 11th level ranger in 1e is going to have a +20 bonus to hit.  First off, the 1e ranger doesn't have a base attack bonus.  I compare his level to a chart on a DM screen or in the DMG.  That covers base attack bonus.  If the ranger is lucky enough to have an 18 Dexterity, he is +3 to hit with his bow from that.  If his bow and/or arrows are magical, he would add those bonuses as well.  So maybe with some decent magical arrows our 11th level ranger is +6 to hit.  And the same goes for damage bonuses.  The 1e ranger doesn't even come close.  He might be 1d6+3 for damage with say a +3 magical arrow.  The 3e ranger might have his strength bonus added in to his damage, his arrows do more damage, and at 11th level he can fire three per round as opposed to the 1e ranger who can fire 2 per round.  No contest in my opinion and my experience.The 1e orc does "1d8 or by weapon type".  The 3e orc does "2d4+4 (falchion)".  Nothing is stopping me from giving an orc a two handed sword in 1e, or a polearm.  The 1e orc has 1d8 hit points, the 3e orc has 1d8+1.  The 1e orc is AC 6, the 3e orc is AC 13 (equivalent to AC7 in 1e).  The monster manual entry for the 1e orc covers leaders, lieutenants, etc.  In 1e, I can just as easily add hit dice to an orc as you can in 3e.  You are opening a whole new can of worms here.  There is nothing in 1e that states I can't make the stock creatures tougher.  That isn't just a 3e feature.  3e might have taken pains to add rules for this or to encourage this but it was still easy enough to do in 1e.  From what I have read, Gygax himself had kobolds that were far different than the stock version.A 12 level fighter stops receiving d10s for hit dice at level 9.  At level 10 and above, he gets +3 hit points per level.  If he maxed out every hit point roll he would have 99 hit points at level 12.  If he had an 18 Con, he would have 147 hit points at level 12 if he maxed all hit point rolls.  The 12th level 3e fighter with 18 Con would have 168 hit points if he maxed all his hit point rolls.  It is far more likely that the 1e fighter with 18 Con at 12th level would have around 90-100 hit points.  The same 3e fighter would likely have 110-120.  There are plenty of challenges for the 1e fighter and as I said just a bit earlier in this post, the 1e DM can just as easily modify his monsters hit dice, attacks, or whatever.  As for AC, -4 to -6 is difficult to attain in 1e.  Plate and shield is AC2.  +5 Plate and +3 Shield would be -6.  That is some pretty potent stuff.  I don't think every 12th level fighter is going to have magical armor of that potency.  But this depends on how much control the DM has on his game and the proliferation of magic items that the PCs are allowed to acquire.  But I can see a 1e 12th level fighter with a -3 or -4 AC.  That being said, a stock 11 hit die Fire Giant needs a 14 to hit the fighter with a -4 AC.  An 8 hit die Hill Giant needs a 16 to hit him.  It isn't until you get down to the 4 or 5 hit die creatures that they need 20s to hit him.  By the same token, the 12th level fighter in 3e is likely at AC of 25+.  Full plate +3, Heavy Steel Shield  +3, is AC26.  That is not counting feats or high Dex.In my experience, 1e and 2e leveled far more slowly than 3e.  Even by the book in 1e awarding experience for magic items and treasure along with monsters defeated, it can take a long time to level.  Sure, I will agree that a DM can make it faster.  Ignoring the by the book rules for awarding experience would allow a DM of either edition to make the leveling faster.  I've heard of some DMs handwaving leveling.  "Okay, two sessions have passed so you are all level 3 now."  But by the book, when I ran 3e we leveled faster than we do in 1e.  And I am currently running Temple of Elemental Evil for my group.  The first few levels went by quickly as they cleared out the moathouse.  They are now on the first level of the Temple dungeon after having dealt with the upper areas of the Temple and the intact corner tower full of bandits.  They have explored about half of the first level of the dungeon.  After the moathouse they were all level 4.  Since they have started at the actual Temple itself, we have gone several 6+ hour sessions with no leveling at all.  I am giving xp for treasure, magic and monsters by the book.  Of course, if they overlook items of treasure, which happens from time to time, they miss a bit of xp that might have leveled them a bit faster.I still don't see this at all.  But to each his own.Well, I never said you weren't a strong DM.  I don't know you so I wouldn't make such a generalization.  And Water Bob explained what he meant by his strong vs weak DM argument.I am a 1e defender because it is my system of choice and I have found my love of D&D again after moving back to 1e last summer.I can understand that it isn't for everyone though as I've said multiple times in this thread.  Just because I think its the best edition doesn't mean everyone else should or does.</blockquote>

Verification