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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 3423848" data-attributes="member: 3608">While it is true that there's a huge range of ways 1e was played, I think there are a huge number of people who played it in very roughly similar ways. They played it mostly as they had the Basic rules that they started with (or that the veterans in the group started with). They ignored armor v. weapon adjustments, the intracacies of initiative, the unarmed combat rules. They let PCs with multiple attacks take them all at once. &c.In fact, 3e reflects much of how the majority played AD&D. Things that were ignored or informally house ruled by most people in AD&D became the written rule in 3e. 3e went farther than that, of course, but I remember seeing a lot of that as I read through the PHB the first time.Of course, I have no rigorous study to back that up, but that's the impression I've gotten as I've talked & gamed with more & more gamers outside my original group.The unified mechanic (to me) is a superficial change. So, I roll 15 or better on a d20 instead of 25 or less on d%. No substantial difference.The variable DC, however--the fact that most rolls in 3e have both a modifier for the character and a variable difficulty whereas rolls in older editions often only had the first--that's a much more substantial change (to me).The expansion of the mechanical character build is also a much more substantial change to me.(Incidentally, both of those substantial changes are things that I don't consider either positive or negative. They're substantial changes, but I can fully embrace & enjoy either direction on those issues depending upon what game I'm playing.)Of course, since I bailed on all things D&D in the early 2e years, any changes I attribute to 3e may have actually happened in late 2e (or even late classic).</blockquote>

Verification