Mouseferatu said:
OTOH, it involves a lot more bookkeeping on the fly, since many character abilities are based on "token pools" that rise and fall with actions in combat.
I have nothing but respect, personal and professional, for Mike Mearls, but for me, the game was just too cumbersome. That, however, is purely a question of personal taste, and not a slam on the product as an RPG. I prefer things a little mechanically simpler, but if you feel differently, it might indeed be the game for you.
In the interests of cooling things down a bit, here's something off-topic!
Ari: In addition to what buzz said (namely, that a token pool is just another set of numbers like hp, and thus quite easy to track), I'll also note that IH has no prestige classes and is largely free of magic items, spell buffs, and duration- and per-day oriented abilities; those things tend to make it much *less* complicated than D&D. They also make the power of high-level characters much easier to control.
Now, back to EDITI0N W4RZ! I'll state my position because, heck, it's the Internet and everyone has to have an opinion!
First, the facts, just so we're all in agreement.
1) D&D 3e very clearly presents CRs, ELs, and wealth by level as *guidelines.* All of these things, like prestige classes, the rules for playing monsters as races, and custom magic items, are in the DMG (or MM), and are explicitly under the control of the DM. Moreover, in the case of CRs, wealth by level, and XP advancement, the guidelines are clearly stated not to be hard-and-fast rules, but rather default expectations. The only implication of not following those expectations is, as Psion noted, a cautionary one; a party with a lower level of magic items will have difficulties facing an encounter of X CR, and a party with a higher level of items will have an easier time. Likewise, the book *warns* that an encounter of a CR 5 or more over the party's effective level is likely to result in a total defeat for the PCs; it in no way "prohibits" or "dictates against" the use of such an encounter (and, in fact, Heroes of Horror mentions the use of such encounters as a horror tactic).
2) High-level characters *were* allowed by the RAW in 1e and before. Much as EGG might like to say at this stage that 10th level was unbelievably high for 1e, the XP tables in the PHB went up to 20th level, and the spells by level tables up to 29th level. Many, many campaigns, including ones I played in, had PCs of 15th level or higher. There are 1e modules (H1-4, anyone?) that allow for PCs of 20th level or potentially even higher.
3) Magic items were simultaneously more difficult to create but far more abundant in modules in 1e than in 3e. The vast hoards of items in G1-3 are a good example of that; no mid-level module in 3e can remotely compete with what's available in those modules.
Now on to the opinion part:
A) 1e has playstyle expectations, just as 3e. XP awards were determined by a monster's strength, just as in 3e. The level at which characters were supposed to encounter monsters of a certain power level (I-X) was in fact set forth in the DMG. Likewise, it was at least *somewhat* expected that characters of a certain level would be walking around with a certain level of magic items; PCs would, for example, be dead in the water against a Type IV-VI demon without a couple of +2 weapons or better in the party. In fact, D1-3 seems to constitute a pretty significant acknowledgement of the need to provide greater wealth to balance a party for tougher encounters, since it gives the party scads of items that are intended to be useful only for the duration of that adventure series (disintegrate in sunlight, anyone?).
B) The only difference between the playstyle expectations set by 1e as opposed to 3e is that 1e's expectations are all implicit, and as such have no internally-consistent mechanic for altering them. 3e's mechanics are explicit, and as such tinkering with them has obvious consequences.
That does not make them hard-and-fast rules. Just because changing a thing has easily-visible consequences, it does not mean that said thing is any harder to change. In fact, it's often easier, because one can worry less about how to measure the change. My major complaint with 3e is that there's no easy way to adjust the party's effective level based on its wealth; one has to (as in 1e) just wing it.
C) DM fiat applies just as strongly in 3e as in 1e. I'm curious as to why people attribute this magical quality of house rule-ability to 1e as opposed to 3e. If anything, at least 3e *says* that if the DM doesn't like something, he can change it (Rule 0, anyone?), whereas EGG has been known to mention that if you're playing 1e with house rules, you're not playing (A)D&D...
D) Superhero characters? The major difference between editions (and, IMHO, 3e does not go far *enough* in this regard) is that the superheroes of 1e are all spellcasters. XP tables notwithstanding, a wizard who survives to 12th level in 1e (750,000 XP, same as an 11th-level fighter) is the king of the party. 3e at least brings the other characters up to snuff (and introduces a far cleaner mechanic by way of the single XP table).
