[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[Kormydigar]

Thanks, Kormy.

That, however, is not a condemnation of 3e. It's a condemnation of an attitude that many DM's, regardless of edition, are guilty of. Even myself at times.

Absolutely. Vanilla DM's have plagued every edition of the game from OD&D on up. We all slip up and fall short of our best efforts sometimes.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

That's the kind of "house rules" I was referring to earlier - dropping weapon vs. armor class, dropping grappling and overbearing, using a different init system, etc. For your 1E games, for example, did you use the init system in the 1E DMG, or a more simplified version a la the 2E init sytem, or like Gary did, just use a 1d10 + dex and casting time mods?

For our games, for instance, we used a 1d10, and used the weapon speed or cast time mod to represent the FASTEST time we could go, rather than as the mod. For instance, if you used a dagger, you could indeed go on a 1 or 2 if you rolled it (subtracting dex mod). If you used a fireball and rolled a 1, and had an 18 DEX, you STILL couldn't go before a "3". And if you used a two-handed sword, you were GOING to go on 10, no matter your roll. It worked pretty well for us, and kept from having to reconcile what a "17" meant in a round with only 10 segments.

1d10 (or d6) can't remember which + ct and weapon speed. We used weapon vs armour type, punching and wrestling, etc. About the only thing we didn't use by the book was the weapon vs armor class table, surprise, and I suppose the init system.

So, I stand corrected, we did change at least one rule (init), but we hardly had 30 pages of house rules as I've seen some people claim. I can't see how anyone would go to that much trouble, I'd just find a different game that suited my tastes better. Though with 3e, I've changed a crapload of stuff, but only because I can't find anyone who will play AD&D. So I change 3e until it's almost 1e and sneak it by.

 

[Henry]

So, I stand corrected, we did change at least one rule (init), but we hardly had 30 pages of house rules as I've seen some people claim. I can't see how anyone would go to that much trouble, I'd just find a different game that suited my tastes better. Though with 3e, I've changed a crapload of stuff, but only because I can't find anyone who will play AD&D. So I change 3e until it's almost 1e and sneak it by.

We went the other way, ourselves. In AD&D, we had approx. 1 page worth of house rules (things from Crossbow damage improvements, to init, to nonweapon prof's, etc.)

In 3E, we've had three. House rules, that is. (1) I changed the orb spells to evocations (and thereby changed them to Spell Resistance: Yes), (2) I eliminated a feat (double wand wielder, because it tramped on the Cannith Wand Adept's turf), and (3) I changed the way that Amulet of Mighty Fists worked to allow Monks to put weapon enhancements into it, as well.

 

[Numion]

In 3E, we've had three. House rules, that is. (1) I changed the orb spells to evocations (and thereby changed them to Spell Resistance: Yes), (2) I eliminated a feat (double wand wielder, because it tramped on the Cannith Wand Adept's turf), and (3) I changed the way that Amulet of Mighty Fists worked to allow Monks to put weapon enhancements into it, as well.

Those are all splatbook houserules though.

 

[Thurbane]

Actually, I can't think of any video game I've ever played that didn't allow you to proceed until you had a certain weapon, with the exception of games like Metroid where the weapons double as adventuring tools/keys.

Seriously, what type of video games are you referring to?

More along the line of early adventure games, where you needed certain items before you could proceed past certain checkpoints or levels. The BFG9000 reference may have been a little out of place - but it was mainly in reference to the WBL system where you must have X amount of magical fireworks before you can defeat X CR creature.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Expansions may be relevant to the original topic of the thread, but bringing them into the conversation tends to make all comparisons between editions a matter of apples and oranges.

 

[Thurbane]

I really don't think anyone can make a unilateral statement that 1E or 2E required more house rules to be "playable" than 3E or 3.5E. IMHO, all of these editions are completely playable "as is" out of the box. It is simply a matter of customizing to personal/group taste.

Heck, even the unwieldly unarmed combat system from 1E was playable, if clumsy.

Quick 3.X question: the rules are pretty airtight, yet I see no rules on what happens to a character who goes without enough sleep, have I just missed the relevant rules? Presumably it involves fatigue, but I can't find a rule on how little sleep = what penalty.

 

[MerricB]

I really don't think anyone can make a unilateral statement that 1E or 2E required more house rules to be "playable" than 3E or 3.5E. IMHO, all of these editions are completely playable "as is" out of the box. It is simply a matter of customizing to personal/group taste.

That's not entirely true of AD&D, as two sets of rules: surprise and initiative, had cases where the rules didn't properly cover what occurred.

(If a bowman shoots at a wizard casting a spell, is the spell disrupted? If a 3rd-level monk rolls for surprise, how many segments is he surprised?)

Quick 3.X question: the rules are pretty airtight, yet I see no rules on what happens to a character who goes without enough sleep, have I just missed the relevant rules? Presumably it involves fatigue, but I can't find a rule on how little sleep = what penalty.

Funnily enough, there isn't a rule. I've looked for it in the past. Forced Marching comes closest.

Cheers!

 

[der_kluge]

We went the other way, ourselves. In AD&D, we had approx. 1 page worth of house rules (things from Crossbow damage improvements, to init, to nonweapon prof's, etc.)

In 3E, we've had three. House rules, that is. (1) I changed the orb spells to evocations (and thereby changed them to Spell Resistance: Yes), (2) I eliminated a feat (double wand wielder, because it tramped on the Cannith Wand Adept's turf), and (3) I changed the way that Amulet of Mighty Fists worked to allow Monks to put weapon enhancements into it, as well.

I can't recall ever having that many house rules in 2nd edition. No racial level limits is about the only thing I can even think of.

I had a lot of house rules in my first 3.5 campaign, but I've since paired them down to very few. I think 3rd edition tends to create more house rules because there are just more rules in general. So, it only makes sense. And balance is more integral to 3rd edition. It tended to be glossed over a bit more in 2nd edition. So, it's a little easier to make little adjustments here and there in 3rd edition.

 

[Thurbane]

That's not entirely true of AD&D, as two sets of rules: surprise and initiative, had cases where the rules didn't properly cover what occurred.

(If a bowman shoots at a wizard casting a spell, is the spell disrupted?

If he hit, then yes, the spell is disrupted.

As far as I recall, any damage that occurs in the round before the casting of the spell disrupted it, rather than the current system that spells can only be disrupted if the caster is actually in the process of casting.

If a 3rd-level monk rolls for surprise, how many segments is he surprised?)

I haven't cracked open my 1E PHB in a few years, but from memory the monk surprise ability had no effect on length of surprise, but only the initial chance.

I'll admit things got fiddly when you had to compare non-standard surprise/to be surprised chances, but it was more a matter of applying the right equation rather than house rules as such.

Funnily enough, there isn't a rule. I've looked for it in the past. Forced Marching comes closest.

Cheers!

Pretty much what I figured.

Maybe some sort of system involving a Fort save that must be made at an increasing DC for every hour of missed sleep? But that's something for another thread.