AD&D First Edition inferior?
- Thread starter Theuderic
- Start date
I rarely played in games that approached the upper class level limits, and in every case that we did, we got rid of the limits. I don't think I ever played a mid-high level game without that house rule. First, because we tended to all play multi-class characters, the game either ended or stagnated, and second because if there was a paladin, the demi-human players pretty much refused to continue the campaign.
Beyond that, though: I take Mirror Image as one of my 2nd level spells, and then go to fight your Fighter 5. Much happiness for me. Sure, I lose the 3rd-level spell for a little bit, but it's the same effect that happens with 3E's sorcerer (gets spell levels one character level behind the wizard), and people aren't avoiding that like the plague.
Once we sat down and did the math, in like 5th grade, it was all multi-classing, all the time.
Beyond that, though: I take Mirror Image as one of my 2nd level spells, and then go to fight your Fighter 5. Much happiness for me. Sure, I lose the 3rd-level spell for a little bit, but it's the same effect that happens with 3E's sorcerer (gets spell levels one character level behind the wizard), and people aren't avoiding that like the plague.
Once we sat down and did the math, in like 5th grade, it was all multi-classing, all the time.
Thorvald Kviksverd said:
Hmmm...
Got me wondering just what exactly he would be losing.
Let's see...
Fighter 4 / Magic-User 4
Fighter 5
- HPs: 16
- THACO: 18
- Armour: Any
- Spells: 3-1st / 2-2nd
- Saves: 13 / 13 / 11 / 15 / 12
Magic-User 5
- HPs: 27.5
- THACO: 16
- Armour: Any
- Spells: None
- Saves: 11 / 12 / 13 / 13 /14
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.
- HPs: 12.5
- THACO: 20
- Armour: None
- Spells: 4-1st / 2-2nd / 1-3rd
- Saves: 14 / 13 / 11 / 15 / 12
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
Bryan Vining
First Post
Another difference
One difference between 1e and 3e that's been alluded to here but largely glossed over is the rate of advancement. With the arithmatic progression of 3e vs the geometric progression of 1e, characters advance much quicker in 3e. That's neither good nor bad, but it is definitely a difference. Indeed, my observation has been that 3e characters level up pretty quickly. Most of the 3e dungeon crawls I've run have characters moving up levels within two game sessions of 4-6 hours each. With 1e, you might match that at low levels, but at mid-levels, you have to do a *lot* of adventuring to level. Many, many sessions.
That difference is substantial, and it's one of the things that will decide which side of the 1e/3e fence you fall on. Another is the degree of regimentation in the rules you like. 1e had many inconsistencies and poorly-defined rules. The 3e rules spell things out much better. Neither way is better, but, again, the type of rules you like helps define which system you like better.
One difference between 1e and 3e that's been alluded to here but largely glossed over is the rate of advancement. With the arithmatic progression of 3e vs the geometric progression of 1e, characters advance much quicker in 3e. That's neither good nor bad, but it is definitely a difference. Indeed, my observation has been that 3e characters level up pretty quickly. Most of the 3e dungeon crawls I've run have characters moving up levels within two game sessions of 4-6 hours each. With 1e, you might match that at low levels, but at mid-levels, you have to do a *lot* of adventuring to level. Many, many sessions.
That difference is substantial, and it's one of the things that will decide which side of the 1e/3e fence you fall on. Another is the degree of regimentation in the rules you like. 1e had many inconsistencies and poorly-defined rules. The 3e rules spell things out much better. Neither way is better, but, again, the type of rules you like helps define which system you like better.
I know Piratecat was thinking about halving the experience point awards to keep his long-running campaign at a slower pace that he and his group enjoyed.
Then came the bursting in doors, and the WotC Rules Police stormed in. Guns leveled at everyone in the group, one of the RPs got trigger happy and shot the family cat in the leg (which is the real story about how the cat lost its leg).
Well, Piratecat quickly backed off and promised to give full experience point awards from then on.
Then came the bursting in doors, and the WotC Rules Police stormed in. Guns leveled at everyone in the group, one of the RPs got trigger happy and shot the family cat in the leg (which is the real story about how the cat lost its leg).
Well, Piratecat quickly backed off and promised to give full experience point awards from then on.
Moorcrys
Explorer
Hey all,
I have enjoyed playing both systems -- certainly the mechanics of 3d are written with several years of 'gaming experience' more than oAD&D, which was really breaking new ground with every supplement (some of it worked, some of it didnt -- a couple of my friends in high-school retitled 'Unearthed Arcana' to 'Dug up Junk' -- though we used some of the material found there, particularly the spells and such). Certainly some of the rules in oAD&D were wonky, but I think what many people enjoyed and still enjoy about a system like that is the gray areas that let a DM and party wing it to keep the game moving without resorting to stopping a session to flip through the rules and find the 'law'. I've enjoyed DMing both editions, but I find that in general players are less willing to go along with house rules on the fly when they have a book full of official rules to look through -- especially if they feel those rules (whether better, worse, simple, convoluted, or broken) are more to their advantage in-game.
Certainly the flexibility of character in 3e is there for all to behold -- making your sleek nimble fighter or burly theify-thug type are all there. We certainly did that in oAD&D, too, there just weren't rules for it. I find that some of the best stuff about 3e is also some of the worst, in that you come to expect some sort of rules reward for every quirk of character, rather than playing a character the way you want and finding out how that plays out along the way. Moreso in 3e than in oAD&D, I've Dm'd people playing multiclass characters simply to maximize their power in-game, rather than because they thought it would be a neat character to play. Since oAD&D was SO much about straight archetypes, character was how you played it, rather than whether or not you took 2 levels of rogue so that your front-loaded ranger could get evasion (which I find to be more the topic of discussion on these boards than how to make interesting characters).
That's not at all 3e's fault, as it's a sleeker, better designed and better executed ruleset than oAD&D in my opinion. It just makes those traps much easier to fall into (well, traps for me in my enjoyment of the game, maybe not yours). I've left a couple of 3e campaigns because I thought I'd get as much enjoyment min/maxing in Baldur's Gate on the computer -- that's certainly all that was happening on paper with to folks I was playing with.
Cheers,
Moorcrys
I have enjoyed playing both systems -- certainly the mechanics of 3d are written with several years of 'gaming experience' more than oAD&D, which was really breaking new ground with every supplement (some of it worked, some of it didnt -- a couple of my friends in high-school retitled 'Unearthed Arcana' to 'Dug up Junk' -- though we used some of the material found there, particularly the spells and such). Certainly some of the rules in oAD&D were wonky, but I think what many people enjoyed and still enjoy about a system like that is the gray areas that let a DM and party wing it to keep the game moving without resorting to stopping a session to flip through the rules and find the 'law'. I've enjoyed DMing both editions, but I find that in general players are less willing to go along with house rules on the fly when they have a book full of official rules to look through -- especially if they feel those rules (whether better, worse, simple, convoluted, or broken) are more to their advantage in-game.
Certainly the flexibility of character in 3e is there for all to behold -- making your sleek nimble fighter or burly theify-thug type are all there. We certainly did that in oAD&D, too, there just weren't rules for it. I find that some of the best stuff about 3e is also some of the worst, in that you come to expect some sort of rules reward for every quirk of character, rather than playing a character the way you want and finding out how that plays out along the way. Moreso in 3e than in oAD&D, I've Dm'd people playing multiclass characters simply to maximize their power in-game, rather than because they thought it would be a neat character to play. Since oAD&D was SO much about straight archetypes, character was how you played it, rather than whether or not you took 2 levels of rogue so that your front-loaded ranger could get evasion (which I find to be more the topic of discussion on these boards than how to make interesting characters).
That's not at all 3e's fault, as it's a sleeker, better designed and better executed ruleset than oAD&D in my opinion. It just makes those traps much easier to fall into (well, traps for me in my enjoyment of the game, maybe not yours). I've left a couple of 3e campaigns because I thought I'd get as much enjoyment min/maxing in Baldur's Gate on the computer -- that's certainly all that was happening on paper with to folks I was playing with.
Cheers,
Moorcrys
The real problem with THACO
The real problem is trying to figure your THACO in the first place
Example
THACO 14, +2 Sword = 12 ?
v.s.
BAB 6, + 2 Sword = +8
Armor was just as bad.
Fullplate (AC 2) + Shield = 0
v.s.
Fullplate (AC +8) + Shield (AC +2) = 10
Which is esier to explian to a new player?
jasper said:
The real problem is trying to figure your THACO in the first place
Example
THACO 14, +2 Sword = 12 ?
v.s.
BAB 6, + 2 Sword = +8
Armor was just as bad.
Fullplate (AC 2) + Shield = 0
v.s.
Fullplate (AC +8) + Shield (AC +2) = 10
Which is esier to explian to a new player?
MeepoTheMighty
First Post
Joshua Dyal said:
P.S. Anyone want to hire a DM?
I need a DM, but you're on the wrong side of the state
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
Dinkeldog said:
Don't you believe it! The game is 10 years old, and the highest level PC is 19th level. You do the math. We average a level every 12 sessions. Slow, but we all like it. It makes for really well-rounded characters.
I grin every time someone asks for an XP system to slow down advancement. All you need to do is halve, third or quarter how much XP you give out, and reduce the amount of treasure by just about the same amount. That's it!
Jeremy
Explorer
How do you deal with young players who complain about such slow advancement?
Particularly when you understand their complaints because you feel the same on the other side of the screen?
Yet you still want to make the game last for more than 6 months... (We're young and silly, we play for 10-12 hours every week so at DMG guidelines we'd level every session or two.)
Particularly when you understand their complaints because you feel the same on the other side of the screen?
Yet you still want to make the game last for more than 6 months... (We're young and silly, we play for 10-12 hours every week so at DMG guidelines we'd level every session or two.)
Similar Threads
- Poll
