Has anyone went back to 1E AD&D from 3E?

Exactly Rounser. It has nothing to do with balance. It has to do with the fact that the rules in 3e are very interdependent, but in 1e they are more modular. Consider that in 1e, for example, that most monsters don't even USE weapon speed or armor vs. weapon type modifiers in the first place. Of course there are advantages to the way 3e does it, but that doesn't mean that 1e doesn't have an advantage or two as well.

Numion wrote:
> Altering 3e combat to be as 'simplistic' as your 1e combat (as you had altered it) is no problem.

I disagree that it's no problem. Look at the example I gave of all of the cascading repercussions that two simple changes cause to the game. If you want to disagree with my assertion that's fine, but give me some proof - an example of some really simple changes with little work and few implications can turn combat into hit-hit-hit-done format. To be honest I think that such a simplification of the system would be very useful, especially for playing the game with really young people who will have trouble with the complications of the system now. I'd really be interested in something like this if you can think of a clean way to do it. Unfortunately, from my perspective it seems like quite a daunting task.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Simply disallow disarming, sundering, grappling, tripping etc. Then your left with the quick start game for D&D 3e. Check that out... I think you'll find it... similar in a way with previos editions.

Rav
 

That's a good idea but it only goes up to 2nd level and has a few pre-determined spells and feats because of the exact problems I've mentioned. It's a good game and I got it for my 7 year old nephew so he can try to learn to play the game. It doesn't really go far enough though and it's a bit of work to scale it up levels.

The adventure game is a great starting point for creating a simplified system. Thanks for pointing that out to me!
 
Last edited:

Ah ha! Flexor the Mighty's! way of playing 1e was in the spirit of Gygax himself. Flexor is victorious as usual.

Anyway I think it's far easier, for many of the reasons above, to toss a few rules from 1e than 3e and not have any real impact on gameplay. But I don't have a 1e players handbook so the point is moot at the moment.

I could auction my 3e stuff on E-bay and then get a PHB there as well...
 

kenjib said:
That's a good idea but it only goes up to 2nd level and has a few pre-determined spells and feats because of the exact problems I've mentioned. It's a good game and I got it for my 7 year old nephew so he can try to learn to play the game. It doesn't really go far enough though and it's a bit of work to scale it up levels.

The adventure game is a great starting point for creating a simplified system. Thanks for pointing that out to me!

One of my periphery projects involves a quasi-basic version of 3e. Nothing is altered, just certain things removed. For example, the only classes and races are Ftr, Clr, Rog, Wiz, Human, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling respectivly. The feat, skill, and spell lists are cropped. Advancement only goes through 5th level. The reason I decided to put this together is for the purpose of teaching newbies, so they can play and create their own character without being daunted by the amount of choices they need to make for CharGen, (I know that someone will say 3e is easy enough teach someone from the PHB. Fine but not all new and young players can consume the dinner entree, so I want to give them an appeatizer. :D ) But the good thing is that when the get to 6th level, the can just plug their Characters into the full version and off they go.

If I can ever get it done I will share it with the community.
 

Flexor the Mighty! said:

Anyway I think it's far easier, for many of the reasons above, to toss a few rules from 1e than 3e and not have any real impact on gameplay. But I don't have a 1e players handbook so the point is moot at the moment.

Hmm. If removing the rules (from 1e) doesn't have any impact on gameplay, then why do it? I thought that altering gameplay was exactly the reason why people make houserules / remove rules.
 

Numion said:


Hmm. If removing the rules (from 1e) doesn't have any impact on gameplay, then why do it? I thought that altering gameplay was exactly the reason why people make houserules / remove rules.

LOL! Stop splitting hairs here. I'm pretty sure he meant that it doesn't have as much of a cascading ripple effect that alters other parts of the rules in unforeseen ways in that way that I demonstrated that removing rules in 3e does.

wsmith,

I'm really looking forward to seeing that. My boys are only 1 year old now, but I just can't wait to introduce them to the game as early as possible and a very dramatic simplification of the game would really help.
 

kenjib said:
1e - To simplify combat to a very simple, story based, hit-hit-hit-done combat we do the following:

1. Remove re-rolling initiative every round: Negligible impact on other areas of the rules.
2. Remove weapon speed: Impact on interrupting spell casting. Negligible impact otherwise.
3. Remove armor vs. weapon type: Negligible impact on other areas of the rules.
4. Remove miniatures: Negligible impact on other areas of the rules.


Except you have now made movement rates useless and lots of rules are addressed to the question of how fast PCs and monsters can move (such as the armor rules and encumbrance rules), and you still haven't addressed unarmed combat. What if a player wants to knock over an opponent (by overbearing him), or grab and opponent (grappling him), or even just hit him with his fist (pummelling him). Now you have a massive headache.

Removing miniatures or some other method of determining placement has massive impact on the rules: specifically how do you determine who is in or out of an area of effect for a spell? How do you determine who is within visible range of torchlight or infravision and who is not? How do you determine if a thief can backstab an opponent or not? I think that in your rush to "prove" how easy 1e is to modify, you rushed past some pretty important considerations and relied upon your (probably almost unconscious) familiarity with the rule set to mentally smooth over these and other areas that need to be addressed when you make the changes you suggest could be made.

Changing 1e is much more complicated than you seem to think, but you don't notice it because the system is so familiar to you.

Now let's look at 3e. What are some things that we can do to simplify combat?

1. Get rid of Aoo: Impacts interrupting spell casting, spell-like abilities, and some extraordinary and supernatural abilities. Impacts fleeing and pursuit. Impacts flanking. Breaks disarm, grapple, overbear, sunder, and trip. Makes several feats much less useful or broken in some other way.


These problems are no more complicated than they would be in 1e. You suggested coming up with a house rule to cover interrupting spellcasting in your assortment of 1e "fixes". Now that it comes to 3e, though, this is a big problem? Eliminating AoO's has little impact on fleeing and pursuit, it just puts you back where the 1e/2e rules were. Just disallow disarming, grappling, overbearing, sundering and tripping, this puts you back to 1e's version of combat. Simple fix. One easy option would be to disallow some maneuvers for anyone who doesn't have an appropriate feat, and just disallow others.

2. Get rid of miniatures, and simplify the movement system: Requires a complete re-working of flanking rules, requires a complete re-working of the action system (which is very foundation of a very large percentage of the game mechanics), impacts all situations involving threatened areas and those that rely on these rules, impacts concealment and cover rules, impacts attacks of opportunity, makes several feats very difficult to work with (e.g. Spring Attack, mobility).


These issues are no more difficult to resolve in 3e than they are in 1e when you get rid of miniatures in that system. Getting rid of miniatures requires you to ignore the movement rules in 1e, requires you to figure out how to apply the thief's backstab ability (and possibly the assassin's assassination ability). Since you got rid of AoO's, you don't need to worry about threatened areas, so that isn't any kind of concern now. And since 1e did have rules for concealment and cover (albeit ones that were somewhat obscure and not well placed in the DMG), these issues are no more or less difficult in 3e than they were in 1e.

In addition, we have a 6 second combat round, so whereas in 1e where we could just assume that all of the maneuvering, fun theatrics, and tactical positioning, and such were done as part of that round we now have to manually hand all of this with mechanics for each action and theatrical flourish. If we want to extend 3e rounds to 1 minute we break the entire action system and distort time in numerous and unforseeable ways.


And this explains why there is a fair amount of detail in the 1e rules about determining and using movement rates. The 1e game was a very miniatures friendly game, it clearly showed its wargaming roots in this regard, and most of the complaints you have about eliminating miniatures from 3e apply with equal force to eliminating miniatures in 1e. Sure you can with 1e, but the modifications and gap fills that you used to do so have likely become so ingrained in your mind that you don't even notice using them any more. And the ease of doing so with 1e is not really any greater than the ease of doing so with 3e.

Easier? I think not! In both editions you have to modify caster interrupting rules. Other than that, it's all about wrestling with 3e.


I think you are looking back with rose colored glasses and not really focusing on how many things need to be changed by the modifications you propose for 1e.
 


Flexor the Mighty! said:
I never felt a need for mini's until 3E. We never used them in years of 1E gaming, but with all the rules about AoO and stuff they are necessary IMO.

Like Psion, I have run 3E with and without miniatures - it depended on the mobility of the battlefield, and just how important the combat was, overall. If it were a straight one-on-one fight, then AoO's and flanking never mattered that much. Up to two opponents to a side, and it is still "wingable." Any more than that, and I do break out the battlemat and mini's, because the group enjoys it, and because it is easier.

I don't know why many people get the idea that 3E is somehow less "cinematic" than 1E combat. 1E in our games typically degraded into, "I'm attacking that guy again" or "Magic Missile on the priest" or "My turn - miss."

Now, we have people who attempt to jockey for sneak attacks, we have mages who wait for the best moment to unleash their spells, we have fighters who think about who the best opponent is, and how to work together to overcome a superior foe. It's more heroic to see someone risk a dash across enemy lines, KNOWING they will be hit multiple times in the attempt, because they know they are the only ones who can interrupt a mage's spells. It was a stirring moment last game when, as the opponents' priest called down a flame strike on me, that (thanks to my energy immunity spell) I strode out of the flames, almost Schwarzennegger-like, pointing at him with my sword, threatening his death. :D It's not to say such moments don't happen in earlier editions, but It happens with equal, if not more, frequency now that movement behavior on the battlefield has consequences.

Y'know, I always wondered if Gary used a lot of house rules - now I know. :)
 

Remove ads

Top