Valiant said:I agree, on my part this is wishful thinking. But so what?
One reason 3.5ers might like AD&D is the ability of not having so many options (across the board). Once everything seems to be like everything else (the MU with armor, the fighter with spells) a desire to get back to archetypes could occur, and AD&D D&D are better suited for this.
Options (or variations) relate more to personality in AD&D, something you slowly develop as your character advances.
Right so completely random restrictions to race/class choices, forcing a character to stay at 8th level while their friends can go up to whatever level they want, these are all good ideas? Lack of options itself is less complex, until you look at most of the actual sub-systems in this case, but not satisfying to all (maybe even most). I LIKE the lack of level limits in 3E. I LIKE the chance to make a Half-Orc Wizard. He might not be the best wizard ever, but he could be quite a personality.
I don't need to level to have personality, I have plenty of my own and infuse my characters w/their own from the start. Even if your character is level one, they are their own person and may be as bookish or flamboyant as you can imagine. Just b/c you show off your feathers and maybe cow some who may be higher level than you doesn't mean you really CAN kick their butt, but you can maybe pull it off so they think you can and leave you alone

I'll start with options and dial it back as needed instead of having to create all my options whole cloth. I havea 2 year old daughter, I don't have nearly as much time to obsess over D&D as I did in middle school

Valiant said:Just because you ONLY like customization, and wouldn't consider archetypes, doesn't mean other 3.5ers wouldn't (esp. those that haven't been to this board (the vast majority of 3E players) and aren't so jaded from past conflict.
Actually, in 1E I ran into problems of some DMs would let me do the things I was describing b/c they fit the idea of my character (sometimes even the pure archetype) and other DMs wouldn't allow any of it. It was all completely up to the DM's discretion and no one else. In 3E the PHB has things like feats so if you want to be able to do X, take the Y and Z feats and you can pull that off every combat if you like. Nifty.
Now, I'm sure someone will comment about how 3E either a)removes all power from the DM or b)codifies things that don't need codified or c)goes overboard completely, but a)Rule Zero exists, b)obviously they did need codified as 3E was the result of thousands of player input and people appear to have mentioned it a decent bit and c)well maybe so, esp as the supplements kept piling on. 2E was awful about this with the class books too tho. 1E just kept tacking on new rules in the DSG, WSG, UA, etc. A model still sued to this day in fact.
Also Valiant, some of us aren't very likely to go back to earlier editions and we're in your thread, but I'm here b/c I find the topic interesting and I enjoy discussions like this. Maybe someone can make me re-examine the earlier stuff, but I doubt it as I enjoy options far too much. I don't mind if I'm playing 3E and the DM says "Hey in my world there are no elves and no one is a Paladin" b/c that is the guys world. If i had my heart dead set on an Elven Paladin or nothing else, then I'd probly be playing something by myself while my friends were busy playing D&D. Or just pick something else b/c it's a different game and some thing different to try.
Last edited: