Greybeards & Grognards 2 "Who Dies" and My Life In Gaming Editions.

[khyron1144]

You're just prematurely cynical.

Well, Diogenes has always been one of my greatest idols.

 

[molonel]

I agree. It is very DM dependent. I am of the opinion, however, that the more rules you have -- no, scratch that. the more situations for which you have rules is actually limiting. It breeds a "if you don't have the skill, you can't try it" attitude in many. Wheras, in games where there are fewer situational rules (like skills) it is up to the player to say "I hide in the brush and wait for them to pass, then gank them" and it is up to the DM to adjudicate such things. You'll have some DMs who say, "Sure!" and some who say "No Way!" and many that fall somehwere between.

I've never had that experience in 3rd Edition. I routinely ask everyone in my games to make Spot, Listen, Move Silently, Climb, Balance and Jump checks. And people develop these skills, too. I've seen barbarians who were expert climbers, and fighters use Craft skills for development of their abilities. I've seen characters dump cross-class ranks into skills like Open Locks, or Tumble, or Knowledge.

On the other hand, we had a guy run a 1st Edition AD&D game at a con of ours a while back. The players were really excited until the game got going The game dissolved in less than two hours because people would try to hide, and he would say, "But you're not a thief!" The DM told everyone would they could and couldn't do. They finally gave up.

 

[Korgoth]

How does 1eAD&D let me make a Fighter that has some stealth and/or can climb, you know, sortof like a young Conan but weaker?

This fallacy seems to be trotted out alot. A Thief can move silently, but anybody can move quietly. A Thief can climb walls (ever try climbing a brick wall?), but anybody can climb a tree. A Thief can hide in shadows, but anybody can hide behind full cover.

So in 1e (and Classic, and OD&D, and 2e) all Fighters can hide, sneak and climb. Whereas in 3E, many Fighters cannot do these things.

Plus, if you used secondary skills in previous editions your Fighter could have all kinds of skills and abilities. Granted, not everyboy used those... some used "Non-weapon Proficiencies" or "General Skills" instead.

These arguments about 3E being less "restrictive" than previous editions largely don't hold up. In most cases 3E is more restrictive, as well as being more complicated and taking more effort to accomplish less. The one exception is free multiclassing, which I don't like but if you do like it 3E is the game for it.

 

[Hussar]

This fallacy seems to be trotted out alot. A Thief can move silently, but anybody can move quietly. A Thief can climb walls (ever try climbing a brick wall?), but anybody can climb a tree. A Thief can hide in shadows, but anybody can hide behind full cover.

So in 1e (and Classic, and OD&D, and 2e) all Fighters can hide, sneak and climb. Whereas in 3E, many Fighters cannot do these things.

In response, I would point to the fact that in 3e, you can hide, move silently AND climb, all untrained. So, in point of fact, a 3e fighter can do all of these things. And, we have the added bonus of knowing EXACTLY how well he can do them.

Plus, if you used secondary skills in previous editions your Fighter could have all kinds of skills and abilities. Granted, not everyboy used those... some used "Non-weapon Proficiencies" or "General Skills" instead.

These arguments about 3E being less "restrictive" than previous editions largely don't hold up. In most cases 3E is more restrictive, as well as being more complicated and taking more effort to accomplish less. The one exception is free multiclassing, which I don't like but if you do like it 3E is the game for it.

So, exactly what skills does having a secondary skill "chandler" actually give me as an adventurer?

Sorry, pointing to the near total lack of skill mechanics and saying "That's not a bug, that's a feature" doesn't really hold any water. At least 2e went some of the way with Non-weapon proficiencies.

 

[molonel]

This fallacy seems to be trotted out alot. A Thief can move silently, but anybody can move quietly. A Thief can climb walls (ever try climbing a brick wall?), but anybody can climb a tree. A Thief can hide in shadows, but anybody can hide behind full cover. So in 1e (and Classic, and OD&D, and 2e) all Fighters can hide, sneak and climb. Whereas in 3E, many Fighters cannot do these things.

Except, it's not a fallacy.

There are no "move quietly" abilities laid out in 1st Edition. None. You know EXACTLY how quietly any character with dex and armor or no armor can move in 3rd Edition. It's an opposed check, and success isn't a percentage chance. It depends on the acuteness of the senses of the listener. I've seen PLENTY of non-rogues and non-rangers succeed in opposed checks while moving silently.

A tree is generally DC 10 or DC 15. Who says a fighter can't climb that?

It is simply false that ALL fighters can hide, sneak and climb in earlier editions, while in 3E they cannot. They is demonstratably false.

Plus, if you used secondary skills in previous editions your Fighter could have all kinds of skills and abilities. Granted, not everyboy used those... some used "Non-weapon Proficiencies" or "General Skills" instead.

Secondary skills? You mean that random list in the front of the DMG with no descriptions? Where you rolled percentile dice to see if your character was a forester or a pastry chef?

Heh.

Yeah, whatever.

These arguments about 3E being less "restrictive" than previous editions largely don't hold up. In most cases 3E is more restrictive, as well as being more complicated and taking more effort to accomplish less. The one exception is free multiclassing, which I don't like but if you do like it 3E is the game for it.

Actually, the arguments do hold up.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Back in my 2e days, we used a lot of the 1e products since the two meshed so well together. I absolutely had a blast doing it, too.

I've converted many characters from 2e to 3e, and from my experience there is a certain amount of backwards-compatibility, though you have to think it through a bit more. In some cases, I find the d20 rules better represent my old characters. As it turned out, I played my old wizard like a sorcerer anyway, so I made him a sorcerer in 3e. In other cases, though, I find the transition to be more difficult.

C&C is perhaps more compatible with AD&D, though it's got the added benefit of working with d20 too.

My advice would be to not worry too much about the backwards compatability thing. Pick the system you want to use, then make adaptations.

 

[billd91]

So in 1e (and Classic, and OD&D, and 2e) all Fighters can hide, sneak and climb. Whereas in 3E, many Fighters cannot do these things.

You're mistaking cannot do them with cannot do them for squat. A heavily armored fighter may suck at those skills, but he is not prohibited from trying them any more than in earlier editions. But now, we have a set of principles and decision rules that will tell us how good a job he does with some consistency.

These arguments about 3E being less "restrictive" than previous editions largely don't hold up. In most cases 3E is more restrictive, as well as being more complicated and taking more effort to accomplish less. The one exception is free multiclassing, which I don't like but if you do like it 3E is the game for it.

Some elements of 3E are more complicated, it's true. But that's not always a bad thing. I would argue that some elements are a great deal simpler because they're now built around a more consistent rules engine and less arbitrary. Paladin abilities like their saving throw bonus and laying on of hands are now more complex, but they're based on a principle using the character's charisma bonus, even if relatively poor, rather than being only available to characters with a charisma set arbitrarily high.
It's also easier to fit characters to classes now without trying to remember if the character fits the requirements for a ranger, paladin, druid, or a monk or not.
There are many fewer restrictions and proscriptions. Instead we have some more subtle tradeoffs to make.

 

[diaglo]

Well, Diogenes has always been one of my greatest idols.

Hong Ooi is my American Idol.

 

[hong]

I disclaim all responsibility.

 

[WayneLigon]

So in 1e (and Classic, and OD&D, and 2e) all Fighters can hide, sneak and climb.

So what's the rule about it? Thieves get those skills and they're not mentioned as being possible for anyone else at all. Is it an ability check? If so, that makes them way better than thieves until like 6-10th level. Otherwise, if there's a rule for it I have no idea where it would be.

2E probably has some default Proficiency rules in the latter supplements, once they started realizing that every other game had skills for every character and people who were coming to D&D as their second RPG were being really turned off by that idea that suddenly their heroic warrior couldn't climb a cliff face without a rope.