AD&D First Edition inferior?

[johnsemlak]

Okay, yeah. Go ahead and spend those 2+int mod skill points on open locks and find traps, both of which are cross-class. The dragon will find your mastery of the multiclassing system VERY impressive, before he eats you.



[/B]

Ahhh, but what you don't realize is that my human paladin/wizard/cleric/arcane archer character has improved, he has gained the green dragon slayer prestige class. So the (green) dragon is dead dragon meat.

Jeesz, I was just joking anyway.

 

[RobNJ]

The idea that I would maintain blind loyalty to any ruleset because of its number or because I liked playing it is just ludicrous.

Reread the last part of that sentence. Ludicrous?

Uh, yeah, that's what I wrote. . . . I think I see your confusion. Note the words, "blind loyalty," not just loyalty. And what I meant to indicate was more like: Just because I once enjoyed playing a game doesn't mean I'll maintain blind loyalty to it if a better version of the rules comes out.

 

[herald]

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

Human's can't be arcane archers, Only elves and half-elves.

 

[chatdemon]

Yes, it there was a lot of monster killing for experience points,
hellbender

Dungeon Masters Guide, 3rd edition (WotC 2000), page 169:

Roleplaying XP awards are purely ad hoc. That is, there is no special system for assigning Challenge Ratings to bits of roleplaying. The awards should be just large enough for the player to notice them, probably no more than 50 XP per character level per adventure.

(note- emphasis mine, not the author's)

Don't tell me 3e encourages or rewards non-combat play any more than 1e or 2e did, it is simply, and demonstrably (as I just did ) not true.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

However, I do feel the race/class restrictions did help encourage players to create characters that conform to popular archetypes, and that is very much what attracted players to D&D in the first place. paladins and dwarf wizard/clerics just seem stupid, thHalfling ey don't make the fantasy world work for me. Of course the DM can disallow them, but I think the 1e rules did a better job of creating the setting which attracted may people to the game.

In the 23 years I've gamed, and the hundreds of gamers I've known, this has never been even on the list of factors that attracted anyone to the game.

3e makes it so that any style of play is possible; if you want those restrictions, they can be imposed. The whole point of 3e was that it was more flexible than earlier editions, which is something that was played up from the beginning. Flexibility means that each game can be, should be different. One doesn't have to use the game "as is;" many seem to have an aversion to custom-tailoring the game to their taste, but still criticize all the options in 3e. Let's put it like this: one can play a 1e style game using 3e rules much easier than one could play a 3e style game using 1e rules. That was something I noticed right out of the box.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Dungeon Masters Guide, 3rd edition (WotC 2000), page 169:


(note- emphasis mine, not the author's)

Don't tell me 3e encourages or rewards non-combat play any more than 1e or 2e did, it is simply, and demonstrably (as I just did ) not true.

I can't think of even that much attention being given to roleplaying in 1e.

 

[Creideiki]

Dungeon Masters Guide, 3rd edition (WotC 2000), page 169:

Roleplaying XP awards are purely ad hoc. That is, there is no special system for assigning Challenge Ratings to bits of roleplaying. The awards should be just large enough for the player to notice them, probably no more than 50 XP per character level per adventure.

(note- emphasis mine, not the author's)

Don't tell me 3e encourages or rewards non-combat play any more than 1e or 2e did, it is simply, and demonstrably (as I just did ) not true.

* 3e rewards non-combat play,
But 2e did as well, optionally.
One must simply learn to read.*

 

[chatdemon]

Well in the since that 3rd. edition is more flexible,

Debatable. Although the material itself offers a lot more flexibility, not even mentioning the 3rd party d20 options, you have to consider the gaming culture. Homebrew rules were par for the course when 1e was around. That is true now, but I see a lot more people now that play 'by the books' than I ever did 15 or 20 years ago. How do you think all these other RPGs came to be?

'elegant',

What exactly does that mean? More supplements, errata, confusing Sage advice and FAQs in 2 years than 1e had in its entire 'run'? You call that elegant? Fluffy and insubstantial terms like this do little to promote fair comparison between the games.

complete,

So that's why they keep releasing all those splat books, supplements, 3rd party class/race books, etc etc etc. 1e, 2e and 3e all have one thing in common. All you need to play is the PHB, DMG and MM. Hell, with 1e, you didn't even need a MM, since the DMG had monster charts with the basic 'stat block' stuff in them.

consistant,

I suppose you mean the 'always high' and 'one roll to rule them all' concepts. Sure, consistent, but I've yet to meet anyone (except online) who really had that much trouble with 1e/2e dice mechanics.
This is like saying 'Blackjack is broken! Aces are 1, Aces are 11, I cant figure it out!'.

balanced,

1e/2e balance relied heavily on what I call the 'low/high' concept. Some classes/races start out powerful and taper off, others start weak and ramp up. In the big picture, balance is achieved. 3e abandoned this in favor of making everyone kick ass right from the start. I don't consider this a good thing, YMMV.

simpler

VERY debatable! Case in point, explain to me, in 20 words or less, without pointing me to a passage to read, how attacks of opportunity work in 3e.

and in general meets the goals of good game design

Where might the unenlightened among us find these 'rules'? And come to think of it, what game are all those blasted rules derived from??? Just because the new school game designers decided that they can do it, in their opinion, better, doesn't mean Gygax did it wrong.

 

[RobNJ]

VERY debatable! Case in point, explain to me, in 20 words or less, without pointing me to a passage to read, how attacks of opportunity work in 3e.

If you take your attention off fighting when you're within five feet of an opponent, she gets a free attack.

Twenty words, including prepositions and articles.

Are there complications to that rule? Of course. But I defy you to explain THAC0 in twenty words or less, including every possible complication.

 

[chatdemon]

I was always uncomfortable with the sexism in the "max ability score" charts for strength. I mean, yes, we know that on average women are not as strong as men. However, there was no "max con score" chart for men, or a shorter lifespan, even though both things are well documented for real life men and women.

Yes, I agree that the dual ability scores for male and female characters were a bad thing. You can argue about the inherent realism of that all you want, but hey, this is fantasy, we want to encourage female players and promote the idea that female characters can be just as heroic, and kick just as much butt, as the men. I was happy to see this go in 2e. It's also worth noting that OD&D didn't have such things, it was, imo, a mistake to add it, and TSR realized this and corrected it.