AD&D First Edition inferior?

chatdemon said:


Actually, it was quite correct. While you pointed out the common explanation for how BAB works, I was attempting to show that BAB and THAC0 are the same concept, and my 'math' was 100% correct.

I've heard the 'addition is easier than subtraction' theory over and over, not just in this thread, and frankly, it offends me. Are we that stupid that we can't even use kindergarten level math in our game without getting all befuddled? I learned how to play OD&D when I was 8 years old, and the math involved never gave me any trouble. Like I said, I've heard the theory, and I guess it may be true, but not for me, I simply can't relate.

They can be expressed the same way if you work at it, but my explaination is how its intended to be done. Meaning that there are less calculations to be made.

Its not that Thac0 was impossible or anything, just that BAB is easier. If you are in your head subtracting your BAB from your target's armor class, you are thinking too hard. No need. Roll the d20, add your bab/bonuses, see what AC you hit.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

diaglo said:

Originally posted by 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?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

LOL! *accidently spewing soda at the screen*

"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 GURPS?"

"All in the background. and what his stat scores showed. Of course we used a different point total. ;)"

AND

"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 RIFTS?"

"All in the background. and what his stat scores showed. Of course we used 5d6 six times. ;)"

AND

"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 Storyteller?"

"All in the background. and what his stat scores showed. Of course we used more freebie points. ;)"

With a ""All in the background. and what his stat scores showed" any system can be made "flexible." But this harkens back to what I always thought what the core DND crowd liked about the game.

They tore it apart to the basics and then used a notebook of house rules to build it back up to where they wanted it. The 3rd ed. just reconizes that fact and allows GMs to do it in a modular fashion. Like it was said earlier, this version of DND's philosophy is to offer more and let the DM cut back instead of offering one vision and force DMs to make it up as they go along.
 

Joshua Dyal said:
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?


I'm a superfreak! I'm superfreaky...owwwww!

For the record, 3e is only inferior for the way I like to DM.
 

Voneth said:
This harkens back to what I always thought what the core DND crowd liked about the game.

They tore it apart to the basics and then used a notebook of house rules to build it back up to where they wanted it. The 3rd ed. just reconizes that fact and allows GMs to do it in a modular fashion.
Am I the only one who finds 3E tremendously easy to hack apart, house-rule like crazy, morph, twist, spindle, fold and mutilate? I created an entirely different magic system, changed the AC system so that armour was less attractive, basically made smart, fast guys WAY better than strong, tough guys, took out 80% of the classes, made up a half-dozen feats and stole a bunch more from anywhere I could find them, threw a bunch of others out, trashed both divine and arcane magic COMPLETELY...

...and STILL ended up with a fun, playable game! Balance problems? A few, mostly dealt with now, it seems. Math problems? Hardly at all. Prep time problems? None.

It was so easy. It was fun. And I almost always had a clear idea of what the impact of my changes would be, and I was almost never wrong about that.

Which reminds me of 1E. The thing that, to me, made D&D better than just about any other game on the market was how easy it was to house-rule the darn thing into complete oblivion. No other game has ever seemed so endlessly mutable to me. Not even the purported "all genre" games -- with D&D you can smack primary mechanics around and it still holds together. Kinda.

I loved that about 1E. I love the fact that it's even EASIER in 3E. Yeah, sure, 1E IS inferior to 3E. 3E is an improvement.

Let me put it another way -- it's easier to morph 3E so that it plays like 1E than it is to morph 1E so that it plays like 3E. QED.
 

The Cavalier and the Barbarian are fine.

Whatever "Lord Gygax" said about the Unearthed Arcana being rushed it certainly has nothing to do with these already playtested and intrinsic D&D elements.

(What do you mean? The Emperor has a longstanding post here? What is thy bid-... Oh, sorry! ;) )

These two classes didn't unbalance anyone's game except the "game" of the Queen of The Second Edition, former president of TSR, Lorraine Williams. Her "game" was to get you to buy into canned storytime instead of using Gary's "Products of Your Imagination". Why? You ask? Because storytime is available everywhere and hollowed out adventures where you can superimpose your players into was real, real scarce.

"Story time" served spoonfuls of fantasy to the somewhat new reader market but it nixed the game's past of the barbarous war and violence of the grognards (term for wargamers).

From her (can I say damned?) perspective this was clearly represented by what a few years earlier had everyone cranking out these characters left and right.

And they have been flayed and flayed and guess what I think of this?

Stop it! Please!

The cavalier is the knight.

Who rules the lands of D&D?

Not the lands of Faerun or Living Greyhawk or Kalamar or the Scarred Lands or Ravenloft or any campaign setting but the historical medieval landscape or your (yes, your) imagination? The world that you would walk out of a college history course thinking about, who rules this land?

Knights! That piece right next to the bishop. To make it legit the original cavalier class has in their progression of levels not a speculated progression but an actual historical progression. Their class custom tuned to represent those of power.

But that's munchkin they say?

Horse manure! (No pun intended!)

That's life! If your DM likes a lighter game keep them as NPCs then.

As for the Unearthed Arcana barbarian class, yours and others problem with the magic items is the hands down most roleplaying fun ever for me and quite a few other people. If your DM can't hold a party with a spellcaster and a barbarian together then that shouldn't have been the reason for taking out something so many of us have enjoyed. He just needed more practice motivating adventures.

Everything about the barbarian is justified by the slow progression and the penalties. A rude and crude reflection of the fighter and the ranger and indeed master of the wild (hey, where have I heard that before?). Whole civilizations topple before their strength and you want them to stop riling up your game night? Well, that's your choice make them into NPCs but don't take them away from those of us that want to use them by just saying that only they get angry!

All this talk aside I think all these concerns would be dropped if we had options in the SRD to compensate for all editions of the game and yes, Hackmaster as well could be initiated into the fold.

Variants.

Choice.

Means anti-partisan conspicuous consumption!

Go look it up now!

Oooooooooooooooooo!

;)
 
Last edited:



Voneth said:
They tore it apart to the basics and then used a notebook of house rules to build it back up to where they wanted it. The 3rd ed. just reconizes that fact and allows GMs to do it in a modular fashion. Like it was said earlier, this version of DND's philosophy is to offer more and let the DM cut back instead of offering one vision and force DMs to make it up as they go along.

here's your spoon. go feed yourself. :D

don't do any thinking for yourself. it's all included in 3ed. :p

as if...:rolleyes:
 



Remove ads

Top