Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Biohazard" data-source="post: 2735313" data-attributes="member: 15086">Hi everyone.  Been gone awhile, and getting back into things now.  Debating whether to use 3.5 for an upcoming series of one-shots; feel drawn back to older versions of the game  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />   Searching for answers on RPGnet (always a good place to go for help with D&D  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> ) and found a thread on "differences between 3.X and earlier versions".  Really enjoyed the post that I've copied below, and I'd like your folks' feedback on it.  Basically, do you agree or disagree with the points the chap makes? I'm especially interested in feedback on the highlighted portions of the text. (My highlighting).  Thanks!***************QUOTED FROM RPGnet (I did not write this!!):[In pre-3.0 editions of D&D] The emphasis was on party interdependence and cooperation, rather than on individual flexibility and empowerment. Multiclassing was greatly restricted and often not worth the tradeoffs, so archetypes were much stronger. Each character was more of a specialist, which meant the party had to work together and cover each other's weaknesses or nobody would survive. It took more XP to level; XP came 10% from fighting and 90% from treasure taken, so with a frugal/stingy GM it could take a long time to level. On the other hand, if the DM used the official treasure tables it was only a little slower than 3E--but then you were awash in a sea of gold. Classically you spent your gold on training to reach the next level, or saved it up to build your castle when you reached name level (and/or hired armies to engage in power politics.) XP requirements doubled every level until name level, when they became linear. You generally could not buy/sell magic items. You also couldn't make your own unless you were high level, and it was difficult enough most people didn't bother. Instead if you wanted more magic, you went on more adventures, dropped hints to the DM... and took whatever he gave you. Once you got an item you tended to hang onto it and it became a defining part of your character. Nowadays magic items are a dime a dozen, easy come easy go, like Christmas presents you don't want so you exchange them and buy what you DO want. The joy is gone, replaced with greed. There was no real balance built into the game; balancing encounters and rewards as a DM was an art form acquired through experience. Instant death was more common and encounters less predictable. Where in 3.X it is generally easier to survive lower levels but harder to survive high levels, in earlier editions low levels were deadly but if you survived to high level survival became easier. Characters were career-oriented. You chose your class (or multiclass combo) at first level and generally stuck with it to death. At a certain point, typically 9th level, you achieved "name level," automatically acquired a small army of loyal followers and were entitled to build a castle. The emphasis of play now shifted to politics and war, though you still had to save the world and defend your realm from time to time. But the idea was that you had "won the game" and were entitled to retire to semi-NPC status, and your fame and power would be immortalized as a permanent fixture of the campaign. Basic mechanics were pretty similar, but much simpler. No feats, no skills, combat was far less tactical (no AOO for example). Saving throws were organized by threat category rather than defense category, and there were five of them instead of three. Attacks and AC were pretty much identical except for the numbers being reversed (old AC = 20-AC, old attack number = 20-BAB). Thief skills were percentile and fixed by level; an optional skill system was introduced in 2E which basically amounted to "roll your ability score or less on 1d20". No prestige classes. The overall power curve was considerably lower, but balanced for lower numbers. Characters had fewer hp, did less damage per attack, etc. Ability scores did not improve as you gained levels. The spell list was shorter and quirkier, with fewer "buffing", "scrying", and "summoning" spells. No spontaneous magic at all; no sorcerers. Clerics did not get domains (except maybe in FR). Clerics were weaker, wizards perhaps more powerful; fighters were better at lower levels but less competitive at higher levels. Certain minimum levels of magic equipment were not assumed in class balance, and many campaigns were far less magic-rich than the default 3E campaign. There were no NPC classes. There were no real monster templates, and monsters did not have class levels. All monsters used d8 hit dice, and did not get bonuses from ability scores (ability scores were not even listed for monsters.) Monster PCs were rare and generally based on house rules. There were no "half-X" templates. Compared to 3E, older versions delivered a similar experience but would be "rules light" by comparison. The experience was more party-oriented rather than character-oriented. The game strove more for story and flavor rather than tactical richness; the rules were originally designed to "stay out of the way" and leave room for role-play and creativity, although many (if not most) players didn't seem to get this concept. The game generally had a more "historic medieval" feel in presentation and artwork, whereas the new game has a more Warhammer-esque "dungeonpunk" feel with tattoos and spikey armor and leather strappy outfits and attitude. The new edition is definitely more sound mechanically, holds together better, and is balanced on a razor's edge. But for all its engineering scientific quality (I won't say perfection, every game has warts) it has lost a lot of the flavor and quirkiness and charm of the original. It is a good game, but it is different... when we changed to 3.X I noticed an immediate and dramatic change in the way players approached and played the game, in the dynamics of play, and in DM prep. Speaking of which the older editions, while giving fewer toys to the players, were MUCH easier to DM. Less prep time, less work running the game, less record keeping, less work to keep balanced. The new game is finely balanced but you have to pay attention to the details to make the balance work; in the older game, once you got the feel of it, things were intuitive and you could gloss over 99% of the rules and just make it all up. (Yes you can do that in the new game too, but if you do that you're not playing 3.X as written and as intended, your playing old D&D with a different ruleset, just like if you whipped up a dungeon crawl in GURPS) My 2c Mike</blockquote>

Verification