AD&D First Edition inferior?

[Grazzt]

And with that, couldn't you also argue that it makes sense for WotC to add their other books to the SRD as well? I'd love to see what the d20 community could do with MotP, OA, and ELH. They've already added the psionics handbook material, hopefully more are to come.

According to AV (Anthony Valterra), d20 Modern goes into the SRD as soon as it comes out. After that it looks like the ELH and DDG (excepting the D&D gods) goes in as these are the two books most publishers seem to want (or so says Anthony and the d20 OGL lists). Haven't heard a date, but I wouldnt expect to see them before early next year.

I would expect MM2, MotP, and some of the other hardbacks to make it eventually (excepting the FR stuff of course).

 

[Theuderic]

So am I barsoomcore, so am I.

 

[Luddite]

Ask and ye shall receive:

TA-DA!

There you go: 1E AD&D rolebooks, as PDFs, for $5-6 each! What more could you want?

Jenifer Lopez' butt? You're on your own there. But if you can find THAT for $5, let me know.

Well skin me a live and call me lugage. Looks like $50 and a night out with the high-speed high quality printer.....

Now If I could just download JoLo's posterior while I do the printing......

-The Luddite

 

[Emiricol]

Superior to 2E, I feel. 3E is more modern, though, in that standards for games have evolved despite 2E's huge step backwards.

In other words, if I had more time than games, rather than the current 'more games than time', I would play Hackmaster or 1E

 

[Deedlit]

Col_Pladoh, please note that I am speaking on behalf of elves everywhere, and that Legolas, Galadriel, and Lauranathalasa among others have voiced similar concerns. We find the word demi-human offensive, as elves were the first of the races, the longest lived of the races, and the coolest of the races, so we propose you change it to either humanoid(Which is nowhere near as offensive, as it merely states the body shape is like that of a human), or demi-elf. Most elves were also laughing for some time at your level limits, until we figured out this was intended to be taken seriously. You have insulted elves everywhere, as obviously many of us are far beyond level 10, and we also have the highest percentile of level 15+ characters. We respect you greatly as the developer of Greyhawk castle and apprentice to Boccob, but you have greatly annoyed the dwarf, elf, halfling, and gnome pantheons alike,(I doubt gruumsh even knows how to read, let alone use a computer.) and in the interest of continuing the accuracy of this great game, we recommend you retract those statements about level limits, or you may find level 20+ elves unleashing their magic at your few temples. How could the elves have such powerful rings, and have one of their own slay a dragon beyond any that have ever walked Oerth, being only level 10?

 

[Emiricol]

Jeeze, it is already "half elf" for mixed breeds, not "half-human." What more do you want, you elitist snobs.

 

[Deedlit]

It's only half-elf because humans breed with everything, even orcs. We just don't like being called demihumans. As for the elitist snob thing, we're not all Silvanesti.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Inferior? I don't know. It would seem that this is almost a generational question. To old-timers like me, 1st Edition is like High School all the good memories sort of blot out any bad ones.

It was less PC and less skill based (no skills except things like Teamster)

Seeing as it was, along with Space Opera and TnT, the first RPG I really played alot it will always seem special to me. Skinny legs and all

First, I'll see Piratecat, and raise him that real-life discussion about equality between the sexes is even less welcome than discussion about sexual equality within the game.

Now, for the brymeister.

I suppose, your high school comment could be accurate. However, being an old-timer, like yourself, 1st Edition is indeed like High School, only I remember the bad times, too, and won't make excuses for them. Would I play again? Sure, house-ruled to the hilt--just like when I was playing back then.

Next, skills as proficiencies were brought into the game in 1st edition with the Dungeoneers' and Wilderness Survival Guides. The problem that some people I know had with them was that you were completely incompetent in a skill, took the proficiency and boom! instant mastery. Not very realistic. Indeed, not very sensible.

 

[Moorcrys]

Not to refute the proficiency slot automatic mastery problem because you're absolutely right about it.

However, 3E's skill system is certainly not the end-all be-all of game balance either. When we first started gaming with 3E characters (especially rogue types) would have absolutely ridiculous bonuses to their major skills by 3rd-6th level... and this was following (and even being a little bit frugal with) the book with regards to treasure/magic gained, with characters rolled up in front of my eyes. The DC rules in the DMG are so underpowered it's silly to even use them. I'd also say that the way skill points are distributed between the classes in 3E is unbalanced in favor of classes with one or two prime attributes. Classes with multiple 'prime' attributes that don't include intelligence (such as monks, bards, paladins) have a tougher time making any use of their skill lists. Not to mention class-needed skills like perform (why not give bards 5 skill points per level since they basically need to drop a point in perform every single level to make use of a standard class ability -- or is the 'jack of all trades' with a juicy skill list basically meant to have 3 skill points per level?), or pathetic skill lists for classes like the sorcerer, which make absolutely no use of that classes prime attribute (why, yes, new player, pretty much every sorcerer you meet has a strong personality and a palpable presence, but NONE of them no how to use it to their advantage without casting a spell -- puh-lease). We've been house-ruling the heck out of the skill system since we started playing to try and balance it (or at least give it some common sense).

Is it better than the nonweapon proficiency system? In my opinion sure -- if you house-rule it a bit. But I'd consider it one of the weaker mechanics that 3E uses if you try to use it 'as written'.

Does it work fine for some people as written? absolutely. So does the nonweapon proficiency slot thing from the older editions. Is it well-thought out and well-balanced between all the classes? I say without a doubt no. I'm sure you could argue that it's a choice whether to sacrifice something else to add two points in intelligence to add that extra skill point for your character. But I believe that the game was constructed in such a way that makes that choice relatively minor for a few classes and a major hit to others -- with no game-definable or justifiable reason why. To me that smacks of design flaw and imbalance.

It does guarantee that most sorcerers will have spellcraft and concentration and most intimidating fighters will want to look at the cosmopolitan feat from a supplemental rulebook.

Moorcrys

 

[Dinkeldog]

*snip*
I'd also say that the way skill points are distributed between the classes in 3E is unbalanced in favor of classes with one or two prime attributes. Classes with multiple 'prime' attributes that don't include intelligence (such as monks, bards, paladins) have a tougher time making any use of their skill lists. Not to mention class-needed skills like perform (why not give bards 5 skill points per level since they basically need to drop a point in perform every single level to make use of a standard class ability -- or is the 'jack of all trades' with a juicy skill list basically meant to have 3 skill points per level?), or pathetic skill lists for classes like the sorcerer, which make absolutely no use of that classes prime attribute (why, yes, new player, pretty much every sorcerer you meet has a strong personality and a palpable presence, but NONE of them no how to use it to their advantage without casting a spell -- puh-lease). We've been house-ruling the heck out of the skill system since we started playing to try and balance it (or at least give it some common sense).
*snip*
Moorcrys

I consider the bard's two primary attributes to be charisma and intelligence. It adds to their bardic knowledge, skill points, and all of their knowledge skills. They're obviously not front-line fighters. What did you have in mind?

Sorcerer spell list, yeah, I can see that. We've switched to Monte's sorcerer, which buffs it up a bit. But "house-ruling the heck" out of the system? No, just a little tweaking.