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

[JRRNeiklot]

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?)



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

Cheers!

The spell would be disrupted if the wizard even uses his dex bonus to dodge the arrow. As for the monk, it depends on the difference between their surprise checks, which gets a bit confusing since monks have a percentage chance of being surprised vs a d6 roll for everyone else. And the monk would be subject to an entire complement of attacks per segment he is surprised, in the unlikely event someone managed to surprise him at all.

 

[Thurbane]

It's also interesting that many of the detractors of pre-3.X editions seem to focus purely on 1E; 2E actually streamlined a lot of the rules from 1E, while still managing not to be too vastly different. Well, less diffent than the jump between 2E and 3E, anyway. It was a cinch to convert a 1E character to 2E; converting from either of those to 3.X is quite a bit fiddling and work.

As with 3.X, the main pitfalls of 2E seemed to occur from an endless series of splat books, up to and including the "2.5E" Players Options books - the precursors to 3E.

 

[Hussar]

It's also interesting that many of the detractors of pre-3.X editions seem to focus purely on 1E; 2E actually streamlined a lot of the rules from 1E, while still managing not to be too vastly different. Well, less diffent than the jump between 2E and 3E, anyway. It was a cinch to convert a 1E character to 2E; converting from either of those to 3.X is quite a bit fiddling and work.

As with 3.X, the main pitfalls of 2E seemed to occur from an endless series of splat books, up to and including the "2.5E" Players Options books - the precursors to 3E.

Well, while those in the 3e and 1e camp might argue with eachother over their games, they can mostly agree that 2e was the worst of both schools. It combined poorly worded mechanics from 1e with endless splatbooks that were also poorly worded.

Heck, you can't even play certain classes in the 2e PHB without the DM writing it for you. The specialist priest basically needs to be created whole cloth before it can be played. So, you wind up with clerics from the PHB, nerfed clerics in the Complete Priest and ungodly overpowered clerics in Faiths and Avatars and Uber-Godboys in the Player's Options books.

I remember playing a priest of Kossuth, using a sword, and chucking fireballs while wearing chainmail all the while using Druid xp tables. Oh yeah, balance? Never heard of it.

1e suffered, IMO, from being the prototype. While some people may like Gygax's style, it was still very dense and confusing. One should not use neologisms in a game rule book without actually defining them somewhere in the book. And, again IMO, the power creep that got into 1e was astonishing. I played a 1e paladin using the cavalier rules up to high levels. Basically, because of those rules, I was godlike - 18/00 str, 18 Dex, Con, Cha, all because I was gaining bonuses to each stat every level and, using the UA character creation rules, I got 9d6 for Cha, down to 5d6 for Dex. Now THAT was munchkin.

(Sue me, I was like 12)

 

[Henry]

...While some people may like Gygax's style, it was still very dense and confusing. One should not use neologisms in a game rule book without actually defining them somewhere in the book.

I've seen this mentioned in this thread before, but could you possibly give me an example or two? I really don't recall them; any word I remember Gary using was not a new term, but mostly some arcane term that could be found by perusing an Ovford English Dictionary.

And, again IMO, the power creep that got into 1e was astonishing. I played a 1e paladin using the cavalier rules up to high levels. Basically, because of those rules, I was godlike - 18/00 str, 18 Dex, Con, Cha, all because I was gaining bonuses to each stat every level and, using the UA character creation rules, I got 9d6 for Cha, down to 5d6 for Dex. Now THAT was munchkin.

(Sue me, I was like 12)

Diaglo often has said that UA was "written for Gary Gygax's powergaming scions." I'll admit, those Method VI (or whatever) rules were VERY over the top, and the cavalier's stat improvement when used in conjunction with them were obscene. The cavalier's stat improvement was balanced by a roleplaying penalty that many times in our groups were never applied to the Cavalier or Paladin properly. If they were roleplayed as uncompromisingly chivalrous as the rules insisted, they probably NEVER would have made it to high enough level where the stat increases would matter!

 

[Maggan]

I've seen this mentioned in this thread before, but could you possibly give me an example or two? I really don't recall them; any word I remember Gary using was not a new term, but mostly some arcane term that could be found by perusing an Ovford English Dictionary.

A fun read:

http://phrontistery.info/disq6.html

Cheers!

/M

 

[Henry]

A fun read:

http://phrontistery.info/disq6.html

Cheers!

/M

Maybe I'm missing something, but none of these are undefined neologisms. Magocracy was defined in the book, in the same line on the page, for instance, and fauchard, bec de corbin, lycanthropy, etc. were all defined elsewhere, and used the same meanings.

EDIT: The only one I can see so far is libram, which isn't an actual word prior to D&D, as far as I can tell, and which is only inferred as being a book given its description in the DMG.

 

[MerricB]

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.

Your answer is incorrect. Please reference the rules and try again.

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.

Ah, but the initial chance is also the length of surprise. You don't roll twice.

Seriously, don't try to answer these questions from memory. I have the AD&D books open in front of me, and the answers aren't obvious.

Cheers!

 

[WizarDru]

It's also interesting that many of the detractors of pre-3.X editions seem to focus purely on 1E; 2E actually streamlined a lot of the rules from 1E, while still managing not to be too vastly different.

Many of the people who comment on said previous editions, detractors or otherwise, do so because many players simply dropped the game with the advent of 2E, so they can't comment from experience. It's my general impression that 1E was during D&D's golden age (when it was part of the popular zeitgeist), 2e lost some of the core audience and then 3E reclaimed many lapsed or departed gamers as well as making some new ones.

It's not that 2E is better or worse...it's that many gamers decided to skip it back then and don't have as much experience with the system to claim it worked one way or another. Throughout the entire 2E run, for example, I was using GURPS as my core system. I left during AD&D and didn't return to D&D for 14 years. I didn't stop gaming, I just stopped playing D&D. The same is true of ALL of my players, FWIW.

 

[Hussar]

Refresh my memory, but where was dweomer defined?

Perhaps I am overstating the case a bit, but, then again, forcing players to consult the OED in order to play is perhaps not something that is a good idea. Take even something as simple as Somatic. When you're twelve years old, trying to figure out what the heck that meant was something of a task.

And, yeah, Henry, I probably violated the Cavalier's code nine ways from Sunday.

However, the point still remains, can you show me a single book from WOTC that has grossly violated game balance anywhere near to the level that Unearthed Arcana did? Hrm, let's give fighters +3 to hit and damage and an extra attack, all at first level.

 

[Maggan]

EDIT: The only one I can see so far is libram, which isn't an actual word prior to D&D, as far as I can tell, and which is only inferred as being a book given its description in the DMG.

Not being up to total speed with a strange foreing language like english, I figured libram and dweomer were identified as new words in the article.

Could very well misread it though. It's friday and it's been a taxing week.

EDIT: It is still a fun read, that article.

/M