Any of you pine for AD&D 1/2?

[Aaron L]

I miss things and don't miss others. Primarily I miss the magic of 1e/2e/basic etc. The magic was flat out more magical, now its more mechanical and flat out more boring. In the old days it was easy to develop stories for adventures develped around 1 spell. Now in 3e the spells are dry and lack any ability to develop plot hooks around them with just a couple exceptions.

How, in any way, is magic different now then it was in any previous edition?

 

[rogueattorney]

How, in any way, is magic different now then it was in any previous edition?

Among other things - Low-level magic-users are very different in play now than they were. I like to say that they went from a one-shot Sleep cannon to a six-shot pop gun. Duration of spells, like Charm Person and the aforementioned Sleep are drastically reduced.

Also, item creation in earlier version was solely the province of higher leveled characters. The various item creation feats has made making magic items a much more common PC activity.

Further, there was a real distinction between the magics cast by the different classes. Illusionsists, for example, used an entirely seperate system of recording their spells on scrolls. Instead of "magical writing" they used a secret language that only they could read and speak. Thus no Read Magic was necessary for their scrolls. In 3e the only real functional difference between the different magic-casting classes is the differences in the spell charts and lists.

I honestly haven't played enough 3e - particularly at the higher levels - to comment much further, but I see where Shard O'Glase is coming from.

R.A.

 

[Aaron L]

Sorry, but apart from the magic item creation rules, I still don't see any difference in the magic systems between editions. The things you described are pretty much flavor differences. I just don't know what he means, having more spells doesn't make magic less magical.

 

[Ourph]

Differences I would note in the magic systems:

- Magic is much more formulaic in 3e. Ex: If there is a buffing spell for Str, there must also be a buffing spell for Dex, Con, Int, Wis and Cha.

- Spells have become much more about "buffs" than about doing something fantastic. About half the spells at low levels simply increase a number on your character sheet (AC, HP, Saves, Abilities, Attack Bonus, etc.).

- Magic items are more formulaic in 3e. Instead of portraying magic items as a unique whole, they are now composed of discrete units or building blocks that are simply stacked on top of each other.

- Magic is generally equivalent in power to martial ability throughout the level scale, instead of being very weak at low levels and very powerful at high levels. Reduced durations, reduced effects, damage caps and the sliding save/DC scale make high level spells a lot less powerful, and low level spells almost useless after 5th-6th level (other than a few remarkable exceptions).

- Casting in combat is much easier for arcane casters in 3e. The risk of spell disruption is minimal compared to earlier editions.

- Magic is much less risky in 3e. There are no spells where the caster runs the risk of death just for casting the spell. There are no spells which prematurely age the caster.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

DM'ing a 1e game right now, don't miss it at all.

Castles & Crusades is going to warrent a serious look though.

 

[dead]

Basic D&D has an odd history.

The original (Eric Holmes) edition was designed as a simple version of the original D&D game; it was designed at the same time that Gary was designing AD&D, so there are some elements of AD&D in it. It was really intended to point people towards AD&D. It had no world attached to it.

The next edition (Tom Moldvay) divorced it from AD&D, and really made it a separate game, drawing inspiration from the original D&D but doing wonders for organisation and simplicity.

David "Zeb" Cook designed the "Expert" set, and Cook and Moldvay wrote the original module for that setting - X1: The Isle of Dread.

The third edition of Basic D&D (Michael Mentzer) is the classic "Red Box" edition, though I feel the Moldvay edition is superior in writing style and presentation.

Now, somewhere around now, a map of the "Known World" appeared. Certainly one appears in my (Mentzer) edition of the Expert set and the Isle of Dread - I don't know if one appears in the Cook edition of the Expert set.

With the release of the Expert series of modules, the Known World began to grow. It wasn't a world that came from an existing campaign, but rather driven by the map provided in the Expert Set/Isle of Dread. Eventually the world got called "Mystara" - I believe as it was converted to AD&D 2nd edition and they realised it needed a name.

###

AD&D 1st Edition derives mainly from Gygax's personal campaign - which happened to be Greyhawk. Of course, Gygax's Greyhawk is substantially different from the published Greyhawk!

AD&D 1st edition does transcend Greyhawk, though. A classic example would be the Desert of Desolation modules by Tracy Hickman (with others) - that's about as non-Greyhawk as you get, whilst remaining in the 1E mode.

I think that there are many different styles of 1E module, and thus the feeling you get from 1E can be completely different depending on the module. Compare Dragonlance to the Bloodstone Wars to White Plume Mountain to the Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh.

I think 3E supports all those styles, however, the Wizard writers of modules aren't really doing the system a great service with the modules they've created. However, part of that may simply be nostalgia!

Cheers!

Thanks, Merric, for the history. I always find this stuff facinating.

 

[qstor]

I like many others pine for the fluffy stuff particularly the Forgotten Realms and other setting books. I don't know if I can take combat away from the battlemat and 5x5 squares though. I'm so used to using the battlemat. It would seem hard to go back to combat in 1e.

Mike

 

[Calico_Jack73]

How, in any way, is magic different now then it was in any previous edition?

For one, it seems that pretty much almost every spell is designed with combat in mind whereas a great number of 2E spells were fluff that made for an interesting game. There were spells that any intelligent wizard would realistically want to have even if they had no combat use whatsoever. One that I can think of off the top of my head was one I got from the Wizard's Spell Compendium Vol. 1 and it was Bigby's Helping Hands (or was it Construction Crew). You cast the spell and it created a bunch of hands equiped with whatever tools were needed for the task at hand. My 2E Necromancer built his wizard's tower with that spell and all he had to do provide the wood and other raw materials. Absolutely NO use in combat but a fun spell nonetheless.

 

[jasamcarl]

For one, it seems that pretty much almost every spell is designed with combat in mind whereas a great number of 2E spells were fluff that made for an interesting game. There were spells that any intelligent wizard would realistically want to have even if they had no combat use whatsoever. One that I can think of off the top of my head was one I got from the Wizard's Spell Compendium Vol. 1 and it was Bigby's Helping Hands (or was it Construction Crew). You cast the spell and it created a bunch of hands equiped with whatever tools were needed for the task at hand. My 2E Necromancer built his wizard's tower with that spell and all he had to do provide the wood and other raw materials. Absolutely NO use in combat but a fun spell nonetheless.

We're still on this? If they were simply fluff why the hell were they in the book in the first place? And anyone who sites anything in 3e as unbalanced relative to the no balance earlier editions is in for a world of rhetorical hurt.

 

[Aaron L]

Individual spells (or lack thereofe) have nothing to do with how "magical" the feel of the magic system is. The magic system is exactly the same as it has been in all editions.

Additionally, you are comparing the amount of "fluff" spells in a 20+ year game to the same in a 4 year + game.