Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[DragonLancer]

Sure there are differences. For example, it was much easier to powergame using the 1e rules.

With respect, where do you get this idea from? powergaming is much easier under 3.X because the game is modular, and with with feats/spells/class abilities, its much easier to create a combo. 1st ed never had anything like that. The closest that 1st ed had was the overpowered options in Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Psion]

With respect, where do you get this idea from? powergaming is much easier under 3.X because the game is modular, and with with feats/spells/class abilities, its much easier to create a combo. 1st ed never had anything like that. The closest that 1st ed had was the overpowered options in Unearthed Arcana.

At the same time, I feel that in 1e, "balance" was a concept in its infancy, and several approaches were taken that, in retrospect, were shown not to work:

• The "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger some kewl powers today" syndrome of balancing demihumans. When, in truth, a large segment of the D&D populace testifies they never played D&D past 9th level.
• The "kewl powers for bad attitudes" design philosophy behind the Barbarian and Cavalier. The upshot is that you actually rewarded wince-worthy behavior that other character types were not rewarded for. This was one of the early examples of trying to balance mechanical advantages with roleplaying disads, a folly games like GURPS went on to replicate, and many or most designers now recognize as being problematic.
• The "kewl powers lottery" that was 1e psionics.
• The "kewl stuff hidden in obscure rules" effect that came with the likes of odd but oft time very effective if you knew how to master them rules like dual classing, bards, speed factors, two weapon fighting, and pummeling rules.
• The "reward power with more power" effect of the way powerful classes were supposedly "balanced" by having stringent entry requirements. The result with a lucky (or twinky) player would invariably be the ones with the most powerful character classes.
• The UA races. Free power on a silver platter.

Hindsight is 20/20 now, and even back then, many DMs recognized the problems (to the first person wanting to reply how they never allowed psionics/UA/etc.: I rest my case). Though you can still dig out combos, we've avoided most problems like power lotteries and powers-for-roleplay disads, which are more blatant problems.

 

[Storm Raven]

With respect, where do you get this idea from? powergaming is much easier under 3.X because the game is modular, and with with feats/spells/class abilities, its much easier to create a combo. 1st ed never had anything like that. The closest that 1st ed had was the overpowered options in Unearthed Arcana.

Where do I get the idea? From actually playing 1e for several years.

3e is harder to powergame with because it requires more effort on the part of the powergamer. he has to know a lot of options and use a lot of small accumulations of benefits to get an edge. In 1e, powergaming was simply about picking the obviously better choices. Elves, for example, were better than anyone else (unless you knew the campaign was going to get to post-10th level, which was fairly uncommon), elven subraces introduced in Unearthed Arcana were pretty much even better than elves. Multiclassing (or dual classing) was superior to single classing. And so on. It was far easier to figure out how to powergame in 1e than in 3e, and far easier to accomplish.

 

[molonel]

Sure there are differences. For example, it was much easier to powergame using the 1e rules.

Heck yeah! Powergaming solutions were much easier to come by in 1st Edition. Some folks take these weird funky combos of numbers, spells, items and prestige classes as proof of how broken 3rd Edition is. But look at how much WORK some of those combos are, and you don't get there until 10th, 12th or even 20th level before some of this stuff kicks in. I saw a bard build on one forum to prove that bards were "broken" were the juicy stuff didn't kick in until 17th or 18th level! Powergaming was much easier in 1st Edition, than in 2nd or 3rd.

 

[Crothian]

3e is harder to powergame with because it requires more effort on the part of the powergamer.

Actually, the first person to powergame a combo in 3e can have a hard time. But everyone else just has to get on line and find all the exploits. I don't even have to have the books!! So, the ease of communication makes it much easier to powergame in 3e. In 1e we had to do it all ourselves.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Where do I get the idea? From actually playing 1e for several years.

3e is harder to powergame with because it requires more effort on the part of the powergamer. he has to know a lot of options and use a lot of small accumulations of benefits to get an edge. In 1e, powergaming was simply about picking the obviously better choices. Elves, for example, were better than anyone else (unless you knew the campaign was going to get to post-10th level, which was fairly uncommon), elven subraces introduced in Unearthed Arcana were pretty much even better than elves. Multiclassing (or dual classing) was superior to single classing. And so on. It was far easier to figure out how to powergame in 1e than in 3e, and far easier to accomplish.

This strikes me as odd. It seems that what you're saying is "In AD&D, it's easy to powergame as long as you know the rules. But in third edition, it's only easy to powergame if you know the rules."

???

 

[buzz]

It was far easier to figure out how to powergame in 1e than in 3e, and far easier to accomplish.

Totally. Once you figured out "dual-wielding elven f/m-u," you were set. UA simply added the elven subrace decision point, assuming you didn't just go Cav or Barb.

3e? Twinking 3e takes work. I also find it to be pretty fun, to produce a wide variety of interesting builds, and to not be particularly game-breaking.

 

[buzz]

This strikes me as odd. It seems that what you're saying is "In AD&D, it's easy to powergame as long as you know the rules. But in third edition, it's only easy to powergame if you know the rules."

He's pointing out the difference in effort, and variance of options. 1e has a few obvious options. 3e has a bajillion once you start plundering sourcebooks.

 

[molonel]

This strikes me as odd. It seems that what you're saying is "In AD&D, it's easy to powergame as long as you know the rules. But in third edition, it's only easy to powergame if you know the rules."

???

No, that's not what he's saying.

In 1st Edition, the choices were obvious. It takes work to powergame in 3rd Edition. The Hulking Hurler build that people are so fond of talking about doesn't get really powerful until an ECL of 18 or more, and it required taking calculating the maximum possible carrying capabilities of a creature with a strength of 60 or higher.

The game didn't explode at 3rd level, in other words, or in blatantly obvious ways.

 

[Storm Raven]

This strikes me as odd. It seems that what you're saying is "In AD&D, it's easy to powergame as long as you know the rules. But in third edition, it's only easy to powergame if you know the rules."

I'm saying that in AD&D there are obvious choices that are simply better than others, that are easy to identify and exploit. And some people seem to consdier such obvious exploits to be "normal" that they become frustrated when 3e won't let their uber character be translated over (witness the various threads that involve people complaining that 3e won't let them properly translate their Skills and Powers cleric or multiclassed elf or whatever and keep him as powerful as he was in previous editions). And in 1e these exploits are found in the PHB and UA, front and center, and easy to find, and, for the most part, the bonuses and benefits kick in the day the character starts adventuring.

In 3e, you may be able to create an overbalanced character, but it requires you to hunt down non-obvious choices to do so. In 3e, to powergame you have to be able to have access to a pile of books, hunt through them all to find the combination of feats, classes, spells, and race attirbutes that will give you the edge you are looking for (which usually comes with some sort of disadvantage, or requires that you deliberately misinterpret a rule somewhere to make work), an in play, assemble them (usually requiring several levels of advancement to make it work) until your plan crystallizes a year into the campaign. And then it usually requires several rounds of specific preparation to make the combination work, during which time, your "nonpowergaming" allies will have dealt with the opposition on their own, and be left wondering why all you did was cast four buff spells that will expire before you get to the next challenge.