Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thorvald Kviksverd" data-source="post: 390843" data-attributes="member: 1495">Hey Merric--Not exactly the sort of help I was hoping for from Dragonsfoot! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Two mighty big areas those!The one adds far too much detail for this tired old brain to adjudicate in play.The other sounds the death-knell for the traditional D&D archetypes.  Granted, you can simply disallow it--but doing so really puts your campaign outside the pale wrt the rest of the D&D community and most supplements (as does eliminating FEATS).You also have larger stat blocks for monsters, monsters with classes, faster advancement, no upper limit on hit dice, altered saving throws, multiple attacks for non-fighters, greatly expanded skills, a cyclic initiative/partial/full action thingy, and a number of other changes as well.That's why I don't use UA. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Which, come to think of it, helps illustrate the aforementioned ease of customization--don't like it, don't use it.Bought a module that uses customization?  Forget it; or, if it's used for a main antagonist, give him a +2 Sword and a potion of speed.Would that it were so easy--but I really think there's a bit more involved...I spent a year trying to make 3e play more like the older versions--until I ended up with something neither fish nor fowl, and realized I should just go ahead and play the older versions.So, to answer the question asked by the original post (be it troll or not)...Yes, it does offend me when something that is merely different, is instead refered to as inferior.To be honest, the question could be asked, "Inferior for what purpose?"If you mean for playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as I came to understand it over years of exposure, then I would say that it is actually superior to anything else out there--afterall, it is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons!If you mean for recreating some of the more anime-like action that seems to be the current taste with many, then yes, I would say that AD&D is inferior for this purpose.  Similarly, 3e is probably better for simulating various literary and historical milieus.That's the rub I guess, the philosophies of the two systems are different.  AD&D wasn't really attempting to model anything, it was simply a vehicle for adventure that existed within its own framework--in other words, a game.  While, 3e aims to be much more. I don't want more though, I'm happy with just having my quirky-seperate D&D universe where Rangers cast spells, Magic-Users can't wear armour, and where Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling are sometimes classes as well as races.Speaking of Rangers, and not to sidetrack the discussion, this is probably why there is so much disagreement surrounding the new class with regards to the definition of "ranger".  People forget that in AD&D, the Ranger simply is what the game says it is--it's not really attempting to model anything (though there were no doubt inspirations).Ah well, that's enough rambling for one night.Take it easy all <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification