AD&D First Edition inferior?

[MerricB]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?

Uhhh...
Explain to me again why we need prestige classes then? Or hell, lets go classless!

Classless is good! Classless is the ultimate goal of our society...

Oh, sorry. Not that kind of classless.

Personally, I'm all in favour of new classes, prestige classes or multi-classing. It's all about balance.

Multi-classing is easier to balance than a new prestige class.
A new prestige class is easier to balance than a new class.

I think most would agree that the cavalier from 1E needs a little work done to it. (I think Gary's recently admitted that in the Great Gygaxian Thread: UA should have had about a year more work done on it, but was released early due to financial difficulties at the time).

Also, Prestige Classes give you that - Prestige. It's not anyone who can take them; you've got to qualify, often taking otherwise useless feats & skills.

Cheers!

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?

I think 3e is "easier" to hit and that's what ends its smoothness.

Well I think the flaws in 3e were much deeper than that.

Let's face it the saving throws were fine, well tuned and we didn't need to see the "see-through engine mounted on the roof".

Let's face it: the 1e/2e saving throw categories were bent, and based on some essentially arbitrary numbers.

You may not realize it but the loss of the cavalier as read killed the retrofitted authenticity garnered when the Unearthed Arcana came out. 2e failed to acknowledge the historical and functional value this class had brought to the table.

The unearthed arcana was the most munchkin supplement ever. It brought us cavaliers and barbarians, super-fighters who got glittering special abilities just for having a bad attitude.

I am not even going to get into the completely different game system that multiclassing, levels and experience has become.

Entirely for the better, IMNSHO. 1e munchkin multiclassing, nonsensible level limits, abilities that made no sensible difference in the game if they were less than 15, etc. I would point out THAC0 like others have, but in truth THAC0 wasn't a regular feature of the game until 2e.

I think we need to turn this game around into a "thinking man's game" again with a new SRD loaded with options that have been features of the various editions of the game.

3e is much more a thinking mans game than 1e ever was.

What does anyone have to lose?

Wasted production time, mostly, since most people who think like you AREN'T shopping for new product. (And those that are are buying Hackmaster...)

P.S. Not a youngin' here. I know exactly what I'm NOT missing about 1e.

 

[Voneth]

Hmmmm.

While I won’t get into championing one system over another, I will state that I felt that some alleged attributes of DND, especially for 1st were overstated.

Teaching beginners:
If you define beginners as an average joe off the street, the thickness of any edition book for DND scares them away. I have seen it several times. I have more luck using a “lite rules” system from other games that have been doing things for years like useing the same type of dice for every game mechanic. … Something that has been seen as a recent godsend to the DND crowd.

Flexibility:
In my experience, the vaunted flexibility of 1st ed usually came with a thick notebook of GM house rules (and any game system can be made “flexible” that way – gunpowder anyone?). It was one of the reasons people were upset with 2nd ed, they had invested a lot of time in tweaking 1st to their style. In 2nd edition, I paid for TSR to codify those rules into their various campaigns and Options books, though the results were clunky at best and the choices were limited. For 3rd edtion, I can now download rules for free and I have a whole library of optional rules I can get with a whole range of 3rd party publishers – but that is more an offshoot of OGL, not DND itself.

A perennial favorite:
In my personal experience: DND is a rpg “favorite” the same way Pepperoni is a “favorite” pizza topping. It is something that everyone can settle for when you have a group with a wide range of tastes. That doesn’t mean its what everyone really wants. And if you happen to be the lone French gourmet who gets pepperoni heartburn in a group of Domino’s pizza lovers – well, then you don’t have to eat, do you thankyouverymuch!

 

[diaglo]

no one i ever gamed with had any trouble making a unique character in the older editions.

flexibility existed even from the beginning.

 

[Psion]

Typical 3e adventuring party

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

As has been said, this character would be an utter pantywaist. Unlike 1e, in 3e you actually have to pay for your class levels.

 

[Voneth]

As has been said, this character would be an utter pantywaist. Unlike 1e, in 3e you actually have to pay for your class levels.

And isn't the AA an elven PrC? I am work and don't carry my DMG around here.

 

[Tuerny]

no one i ever gamed with had any trouble making a unique character in the older editions.

flexibility existed even from the beginning.

Yes, a limited amount of flexibility brought about from being able to combine a particular race with a particular class and then run with the concept that resulted in that...

3e allows even more flexibility to model your character's abilities with the rules system itself.

Want to play a human warrior who is also able to sneak around and perform basic acrobatics?
Play a fighter/rogue with most of your levels in fighter and your rogue levels and alot your rogue skill points to tumble, balance, move silently, and hide.

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

 

[Psion]

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. Halfling paladins and dwarf wizard/clerics just seem stupid, they 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.

Y'know what...

Dwarven wizards bug me.

Y'know what else...

A design principle of 3e is to put such things in the hands of the DM. If you don't like them, don't allow them. That's better than fighting upstream against the rule and not being told by the authors that you are compromising the purity of the game if you dare deviate.

 

[chatdemon]

Not quite correct.

Your AC is 15. My BAB is 3. I roll a d20, add my BAB and any other modifiers. That is the AC I hit. SO if its 15 or more, I hit.

This is only one operation, and addition is faster to do on the fly than subtraction. Thus, BAB is easier than Thac0.

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.

 

[MerricB]

Alas, it's true. The number of people with inferior mathematical skills - mainly due to PC teaching practices - is larger than you might think.

I play with people who, though otherwise quite intelligent and excellent role-players, have trouble adding 15 and 9 together. Please don't ask them to subtract anything.

One thing I've noticed recently is how much more useful in play Skills are than Non-weapon Proficiencies.

NWP almost never impacted on my games. We use skills all the time. I like the idea of my character being a superior diplomat, able to calm people down - or enrage them!

Cheers!