AD&D First Edition inferior?

[Desdichado]

Nope. I'll stand by it. It's a good idea.

What's your good idea there, though? Any game system without the cavalier is automatically inferior?
P.S. Anyone want to hire a DM?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

here's your spoon. go feed yourself.

Actually, that's a pretty good description of 3e.

You deftly sidestepped the question about how to create those flexible characters with the "it's all in the background" assertion. That's not an indication of the flexibility of the system; it's a tribute to the ingenuity of the players. We House Ruled so much because it wasn't provided for and we felt the need - it's not like that's an intrinsic virtue of the system. barsoomcore is eloquent in his post above about the mutability of the 1e system, but I still can't bring myself to agree with it. Back in the day, we tore apart and House Ruled the heck out of all kinds of games, from Traveller to Dragonquest to Boot Hill to Gamma World to Top Secret. D&D didn't seem especially suited to such customization, in comparison to any other given game. 1e, and especially older editions of D&D, is a good game for those who want more free-form action. That doesn't mean it's especially good for it.

Now, I'm not saying 1e sucks. I'm just saying that the issue of it being especially suited for customization holds true for a lot of other games.

 

[barsoomcore]

Back in the day, we tore apart and House Ruled the heck out of all kinds of games, from Traveller to Dragonquest to Boot Hill to Gamma World to Top Secret. D&D didn't seem especially suited to such customization, in comparison to any other given game.

Yeah, you know what, you're right. Even as I was writing I thought, "Jeez, overstate the case a little more, why don't you?"

Okay, so we all loved house ruling 1E to death. What fun.

All I'm saying is that house ruling 3E is even MORE fun.

All I'm saying.

 

[GENEWEIGEL]

What's your good idea there, though? Any game system without the cavalier is automatically inferior?
[/img]

A SRD with all the editions.

Don't fight the flow. We now live in the age of internet enlightenment.

Why would companies bother adhering to something new if it scuttles away some previous revenues?

Not you as the fan but for the D20 industry to sell to the whole gamer spectrum ranging from wargaming grognard college professors of old to the "Monte Clicker-naut" boys of today.

Not only will this be better for sales but better for you as the DM as well.

Just picture it: every D&D rule ever made at your finger tips.

Now that would be a System Reference Document!

Let the cavaliers ride once more!

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

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.

Hmmm...

Got me wondering just what exactly he would be losing.

Let's see...

Fighter 4 / Magic-User 4

• HPs: 16
• THACO: 18
• Armour: Any
• Spells: 3-1st / 2-2nd
• Saves: 13 / 13 / 11 / 15 / 12

Fighter 5

• HPs: 27.5
• THACO: 16
• Armour: Any
• Spells: None
• Saves: 11 / 12 / 13 / 13 /14

Magic-User 5

• HPs: 12.5
• THACO: 20
• Armour: None
• Spells: 4-1st / 2-2nd / 1-3rd
• Saves: 14 / 13 / 11 / 15 / 12

I won't pretend that they're all equal in ability (though I don't know how you could measure that--so much of it being situation dependant), but I really don't think he is nearly doubling his ability by multi-classing. There are trade-offs involved--just as in 3e.

It may even be more beneficial to multi-class in AD&D than in 3e--at least at first blush--but remember, Demi-Humans have an upper limit on advancement in most cases, and the allowable combinations are much more restricted. I think these latter two points largely mitigate whatever advantages they may enjoy vis-a-vis Humans when it comes to their ability to multi-class--Of course it is probably always better for a Demi-Human to multi-class given these advancement limits (leaving aside Thieves, or any other class they may be allowed unlimited advancement in). I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing however, it's more of a flavor issue, and helps to differentiate them further from Humans. Interestingly, many of my Demi-Humans tend to be single-classed nonetheless--especially my Dwarves.

Ah well, enough typing for now

 

[Voneth]

here's your spoon. go feed yourself.

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

as if...

LOL! there you go again! I ask why are YOU letting yourself be spoon fed through that thar fancy hardback! Hell, any real DND player would use the REAL 1st ed that came in the box and was a white booklet, not that mislabled monstronsity of more than 100 pages! Yeah, ultimate flexiblity! You make up almost EVERY rule as you go along.

As a further example:
Right now I am using a computer with a word processor. Should I be lazy becauase I am not using an assembler language to input my sentences in "1" and "0?" And now I have also think of grammar and sentence structure.

Sure some hobbist like to build a computer from scratch, including their own quirky OS, before they start playing a strategy game. Others like to fine tune a regular computer with their own sound and graphic cards, and then mess with conflicting drivers all day. Others like the idea just slapping a disk the console and start playing.

Does that diminish the actual effort and cunning of the player's attempts to win the game? no.

It all boils down to your personal taste in how much prep time you want before the game compared to actual time spent playing.

 

[Desdichado]

A SRD with all the editions.

Don't fight the flow. We now live in the age of internet enlightenment.

Why would companies bother adhering to something new if it scuttles away some previous revenues?

Not you as the fan but for the D20 industry to sell to the whole gamer spectrum ranging from wargaming grognard college professors of old to the "Monte Clicker-naut" boys of today.

Not only will this be better for sales but better for you as the DM as well.

Just picture it: every D&D rule ever made at your finger tips.

Now that would be a System Reference Document!

Let the cavaliers ride once more!

Sorry, I just can't see the point of it. What rules are you missing that you want so badly? I can't think of a one that doesn't have something better in place today.

 

[Desdichado]

Hmmm...

Got me wondering just what exactly he would be losing.

Let's see...

Fighter 4 / Magic-User 4
Fighter 5
Magic-User 5
[/list]
I won't pretend that they're all equal in ability (though I don't know how you could measure that--so much of it being situation dependant), but I really don't think he is nearly doubling his ability by multi-classing. There are trade-offs involved--just as in 3e.

Well, of course you don't see the trade-offs. You're comparing an 8th level character to 5th level characters. For a meaningful comparison, try a Fighter4/Wizard4 compared to a Fighter8 and a Wizard8.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Well, of course you don't see the trade-offs. You're comparing an 8th level character to 5th level characters. For a meaningful comparison, try a Fighter4/Wizard4 compared to a Fighter8 and a Wizard8.

Ummm...

I might be missing something obvious, but I think we were discussing the merits of multi-classing in AD&D--not 3e.

In AD&D, a character who had amassed 30,000exp would have enough to be a 5th level Fighter, or a 5th level Magic-user, or a multi-classed 4/4 Ftr/M-U (i.e. 15,000exp in each class).

Like I said, if I'm missing something here, let me know and I'll re-figure...

 

[Desdichado]

I might be missing something obvious, but I think we were discussing the merits of multi-classing in AD&D--not 3e.

In AD&D, a character who had amassed 30,000exp would have enough to be a 5th level Fighter, or a 5th level Magic-user, or a multi-classed 4/4 Ftr/M-U (i.e. 15,000exp in each class).

Like I said, if I'm missing something here, let me know and I'll re-figure...

And I thought we were comparing the two systems. But I probably didn't get sidetracked enough to follow your conversation. Sorry!