Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 3394239" data-attributes="member: 467">I think the small differences are far greater when taken in total.  While lower and limited hit dice may not itself be a huge difference (it certainly isn't, say, Wound Levels different), and the race/class issues might be relatively minor when compared to full on point-based char. gen. games, when all these elements come together you get a very different game -- not just in mechanics, but in how it is played.To use 3.5 vs. RCD&D as an example -- and I am not making a judgement about superiority, or even preference as I like them both -- it is more than rules light vesus heavy crunch.  From a player's perspective, the games are on opposite ends of the "fiddly" spectrum, opposite ends of the advancement rate spectrum and even opposite ends of the "what do I do now?" spectrum (ever increasing opposition CRs, versus dominion rulership and large scale warfare and immortality).  Even the simple fact of the saving throws changes the way the games are played -- in 3.5, the chance to save is relative to the threat, while in RCD&D the chance to save is relative to the character.  Not to mention, in many cases, the differences in consequences for failed saves.From a DM's perspective, things are different as well.  The design philosophy -- of challenges and adventures and the world at large -- puts the DM in a very different state of mind between the two games.  To parallel the player issues, the nature of powerful challenges (how many hit dice does the greatest of Red Dragons have in the two games?) and the differences in effects when saves are failed informs the nature of the games.  that PCs can and are expected to build nations, fight wars and seek immortality is important.And this doesn't even begin to include AD&D -- both editions -- in the equation.</blockquote>

Verification