AD&D First Edition inferior?

[diaglo]

You couldn't really do that in 1st edition......

i beg to differ. you could do that in 1ed.

you just didn't have a set % like the thief had.

and just like 3ed armor has penalties.

ask the barbarian trying to wear plate mail in 3ed.

 

[Tuerny]

Ok, so just out of curiosity how would you go about creating a lightly armored, nimble character who was a skilled warrior but also had taken some time to honing his stealth and acrobatic abilities in 1st edition?

 

[Voneth]

Typical 1e adventuring party:

1. Half-elf Ranger, skilled with the bow and longsword.

2. Human Paladin

3. Human Wizard (or magic-user)

4. Dwarven Fighter, skilled with a battle axe.

5. Elven Fighter-magic-user.

6. Hafling Thief

7. Human Cleric



Typical 3e adventuring party

1. Human multiclass Paladin/Wizard/Cleric with an open locks and find traps skill and an Arcane Archer prestige class.

Well, on these 2 points

1st ed:
Notice how you have 3 humans out of 7 party members, and the spell casters are optional if you get another demi-human. In most fantasy novels, the humans got the lion's share of the cast, not so in 1st ed. Now true, you could play humans, but players love to be "da bomb" in their chosen class. Now, PC demographics relfect fantasy demographics, humans are everywhere. And if you want to play an demi-human, it's done for the right reason, becasue you want to be a demi-human, not because you want to be the most effeiceint theif/generalist/etc.

3rd ed:

You're example points out how you misuderstood the system in two fundementaly different ways.

1.) That fellow would be outclassed a party of single class characters made from the same nubmer of TOTAL levels as your MC/PrC PC. In fact, he be a good challenge rating for that party.

2.) Say that in my game, I thought being a paladin was something you earned through roleplay and experience (as in Classic D&D). Now I can make a Paladin PrC in a fashion that doesn't involve the tons of numbers that it did in 2 ed.

I am not saying one system is better than the other, but I think your examples don't support your position very well.

 

[johnsemlak]

W
3rd ed:

You're example points out how you misuderstood the system in two fundementaly different ways.

1.) That fellow would be outclassed a party of single class characters made from the same nubmer of TOTAL levelsthat as your MC/PrC PC. In fact, he be a good challenge rating for that party.

2.) Say that in my game, I thought being a paladin was something you earned through roleplay and experience (as in Classic D&D). Now I can make a Paladin PrC in a fashion that doesn't involve the tons of numbers that it did in 2 ed.

I am not saying one system is better than the other, but I think your examples don't support your position very well.

Voneth

Sorry to get defensive , but my posting which you quoted was a joke, it did not express my 'position' on 3e or a 'fundemental misunderstanding' of 3e. I do admit I'm a novice to 3e (though given tha 3e was introduced only 2-3 years ago, I think we all are).

I explained my views (which you may very well disagree with, and you're welcome to say so ) in a later posting, which you can find above.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

We played 1e for years and 9/10 PC's was a human.

 

[Dinkeldog]

We played 1e for years and 9/10 PC's was a human.

Very different from my experience. The only humans we had were paladins and the rare monk. All others were elves and half-elves, except for the occasional time that I'd play a gnome thief/illusionist.

The other big difference is that in 3E, people are encouraged to stay single-classed--definitely as spellcasters, paladins and monks. In 1E, you could double your ability by multi-classing. Since the experience tables were a geometric progression, a single-classed 5th level character's companions were 4/4. That's not giving up very much at all.

 

[diaglo]

Ok, so just out of curiosity how would you go about creating a lightly armored, nimble character who was a skilled warrior but also had taken some time to honing his stealth and acrobatic abilities in 1st edition?

all in the background. and what his stat scores showed.

of course we used 3d6 six times.

but eventually adopted the 4d6 drop the lowest method.

never did use the UA version.


as a generic answer or maybe a question. did you ever read the Gord series?

 

[Bryan Vining]

Well, this is an easy question. No, 1e is not inferior to 3e. They are different. They have a different spirit in the rules, and they try to accomplish different things.

IMO, 3e tries to be a "everything to everyone" sort of game system. I think it succeeds admirably, and it "fixes" a lot of the "broken" rules of previous eds. OTOH, there is nothing that makes 3e an inherently more fun game to play than 1e. Concentrating on the rules sets ignores the finer points that a good DM and good setting with a good storyline makes the details of the rules much less important. Add to this that the rules are always just "suggestions", and we see that rules are really of secondary importance. Nonetheless, I have my favorite rules set, and it's not 3e. I like 3e sometimes. I like OD&D (not to be confused with Basic D&D, which is different) sometimes. But to my mind, the best version of D&D out there isn't D&D. It's HackMaster. It's a lot like 1e, but it's much better. Anyway, now that I've hijacked the thread, I'm going to sit back and watch the melee begin.

 

[diaglo]

We played 1e for years and 9/10 PC's was a human.

this was similar to my experience.

ran a game with 14 players once. 11 humans, 1 elf, 1 dwarf, and 1 halfling.

but we used the racial class limits.

never had any paladins. no one ever had the stats for it.

 

[Desdichado]

In my opinion, of course the older editions of the game were inferior to 3e. It's so mind-numbingly clear that I can't see how anyone would think otherwise. That said, I'm just stating my opinion, all of y'all who think otherwise are similarly welcome to disagree.

But what I'm curious about, other than Flexor, who is a confirmed freak of nature , are the rest of you 1e supporters just trying to keep 1e from being bashed, or do you actually think that 1e is superior to 3e? If so, what in the h... I mean, why? Do you even think the two editions are "seperate but equal" -- a very PC answer I've heard a few times in the thread? How is that, exactly? Based on what?