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

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

Your list of cascading issues are unimportant because you are failing to separate the essential from inessential.

Your stripped down 1e system is a simplistic "I swing, you swing" system. Nothing wrong with that if you like that sort of game.

It is easy to make 3e exactly that simple. No AoOs. Strip the list of Feats down to 8 or 12. No skill system (just stat checks). Simplify the initiative rules. No bull rush, disarm, etc. Tune down the xp rewards. And guess what? This system is much faster than "1e lite" because it has an easier to use AC system, simpler saving throws, and many fewer charts to consult. And the game balance is still more solid as any version of 1e.

Of course, if you wanted to add skills that is not going to hurt combat appreciably. Add in feats slowly over the campaign. AoOs are really what slow combat down.

IMHO, I know the 3e rules much better than any 1e/2e version even though I have spent maybe one tenth the amount of time learning them. The rules are simply more consistent and more logical. The best part is that when I have a rule question, I can find the relavent section on my first try 90% of the time. Can you say the same about 1e/2e?

One of the beautiful things about 3e is it is pretty well balanced. Now yanking out mechanics does affect the game balance, but that is in no way a failing of 3e when you are comparing what is left with 1e. 1e really did not have any game balance to speak of.

Your bias for 1e is because you have already done the hard work of customizing the system, and you are not interested in doing the same for 3e even though it would be an easier task. I have no problem with that. But don't confuse your own lethargy with some actual virtue of 1e.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

How did you determine the targets of Area of Effect spells without some way of tracking movement and placement?

Imagine you are playing A1, and your party of 5th level characters stumbles into a 50 x 50 room full of 30 orcs. Your magic-user decides this would be a good time to use his fireball spell. Without some form of position tracker (like minis and so on), how do you determine how many orcs get baked and how many are outside of the area affected?

If you just winged it, why are you unable to wing AoOs now?

 

[kenjib]

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.
[/B]

Movement rules in 3e are likewise effected in every way that you say 1e are, and moreso, since the whole action system is effected, which is more integral to the system than 1e's movement system since it not only determines how much you move, but also what other types of actions you can perform depending on how you move as well as your movement rate. It also effects numerous feats and skills.

How are overbearing, grappling, and pummelling, effected by removing miniatures in any way that they are not in 3e? In addition with 3e you have problems with AoO related to these actions and feats that rely on this relationship. If getting rid of AoO is the fix for this then you are tampering with the balance of the entire feat system and the balance between fighter and non-fighter classes in a way that does not happen in 1e.

1e might give a massive headache, but 3e gives a titanic 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.
[/B]

All of those area and position issues apply equally to 3e (whether or not a thief can backstab is just a subset of whether or not he is in position to attack). I actually left them out intentionally because they applied to both. You're right that I should have included them for the sake of completeness but it doesn't really tip the balance toward 3e or change my argument.

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.
[/B]

You're right in that my argument wasn't structured all that well. Let me try again by giving you an example of how things reverberate through the system:

You wrote:
> AoO's has little impact on fleeing and pursuit, it just puts you back where the 1e/2e rules were.

But what things unique to 3e do you have to consider to get there just regarding the relationship between AoO's and fleeing/pursuit?

1. Tumble
2. Mobility
3. Combat Reflexes
4. Reach weapons vs. non reach weapons
5. Hustle vs. Run (only in a straight line)
6. Loss of dex bonus while running
7. Charge
8. Partial charge and haste

A few of these are very easy fixes. In additiona, some of them are only very slightly affected by such a rules modification. Nonetheless they still come to consideration. Also keep in mind that fleeing/pursuit is only one small subset of the issues that crop up with removing AoO.

So, what's easier to do, change all of this or just have it that simple in the first place? Your argument here seems to support my point. You state that if you change X, Y, and Z, in 3e then you get rules in this area that are as simple as 1e. My point is that you have to change X, Y, and Z, in 3e in order to get rules in this area that are as simple as 1e. It's two different ways to say the same thing. 3e requires more work either way you say it.

The same thing applies to your disallowing grapple, pummle, overbear, etc. Look at all of the things that you are suggesting we change to make this fix just to get back to where we were in 1e.

I'm not saying that the system irrevocably breaks when you try to make changes like this, but rather that in order to make such changes you need to revisit a much larger number of rules and special cases. 3e is a somewhat tight and interdependent system.

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).[/B]

I responded to this issue in my reply to the second quoted reference above.

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.
[/B]

I don't think that this is a fair argument. What if I only wanted to remove one of these rules and not the other? The rules in 3e are more interdependent. It seems like this supports my example as well. If you remove miniatures, it's easier to just remove AoO as well. The rules are intertwined in such a way that it's hard to extricate them from each other.

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.
[/B]

Good point about concealment and cover. You are definitely right.

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.[/B]

I don't think that most of my arguments also apply with equal force to 1e and would be interested in seeing you back this claim up further. Here are the specific examples from my original post and *new comments on them*:

1. Requires a complete re-working of flanking rules
*3e only*

2. requires a complete re-working of the action system (which is very foundation of a very large percentage of the game mechanics)
*As I said before, the action system in 3e effects not only movement now, but what types of actions (standard, full, partial, move-equivalent, free) you can perform and when. These actions also effect how fast you move since you can only move at certain rates depending on what type of action you have (hustle, charge, partial charge, run). Changing 3e is much more complicated in this regard.*

3. impacts all situations involving threatened areas and those that rely on these rules
*3e only*

4. impacts concealment and cover rules
*You got me here. This shouldn't have been given as an example.*

5. impacts attacks of opportunity
*3e only*

6. makes several feats very difficult to work with (e.g. Spring Attack, mobility).
*3e only*

As far as I can tell only one of these examples applies with equal force to 1e.

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. [/B]

You're right in that I left out some things that are effected in 1e, and made it seem like the conversion was easier than it is, but so far all of those items equally apply to 3e in addition to the extra problems that come up with 3e. I still hold that it is far more difficult to simplify the 3e rules.

You also didn't address my concern over impacting numerous feats and also my concern over having to fret over numerous rules supplements which are tightly interwoven with the 3e rules assumptions. Part of the 3e identity is the whole d20 thing and the rules expandibility. I think that it's only fair to consider the fact that 3e is an open system and 1e was a closed system. These traits also have their advantages and disadvantages. The need to worry about forward compatibility is definitely a significant issue in 3e that did not exist as much nearly as it did in 1e, since new content was more uniform, coming from one publisher as it did.

Good debate Storm Raven! Your arguments are very insightful. Hopefully I did not misunderstand any of your points as I addressed them. If I did please let me know.

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."
[/B]

Hi Henry,

I agree with you that 3e combat can be very cinematic. In fact, one of my favorite things about 3e is the amazing job they did to make fighters suddenly so exciting and dynamic. I think that fighters, by far, got the most dramatic overhaul of all of the classes. In fact, I think that the most significant changes to the fundamental system benefit them most, although it's a tough call between them and rogues. I think that in 3e the cinematic stuff gets incorporated into the rules more whereas in 1e you just wing it more often and the cinematics have less actual bearing on the outcome of the battle. In that way I think that 3e is more cinematic. It just loses simplicity, speed, and ease of play, as a tradeoff. I think that it's definity worth the trade off though, and I really like all of the combat options in 3e, despite my arguments above.


final note: I'm going to repeat my ubiquitous disclaimer here - I do like 3e better!

 

[Storm Raven]

1. Requires a complete re-working of flanking rules
*3e only*

I'll take these one at a time.

I would say that it would require a complete reworking of the 1e thief backstab and assassin assassination rules. In addition, this touches on the fact that 1e had acing, so you have to determine if someone is "behind" you or even "on your right" (since in that case in 1e, you lost your shield bonus if you had one). These are functionally similar mechanics to the 3e flanking rules and must be addressed if you eliminate some form of positioning tracker.

2. requires a complete re-working of the action system (which is very foundation of a very large percentage of the game mechanics)
*As I said before, the action system in 3e effects not only movement now, but what types of actions (standard, full, partial, move-equivalent, free) you can perform and when. These actions also effect how fast you move since you can only move at certain rates depending on what type of action you have (hustle, charge, partial charge, run). Changing 3e is much more complicated in this regard.*

In 1e you had segments, which filled much the same role as the action system 3e uses, but were intensely more complicated (since there were 10 segments to a round). Spell casting time was reflected in segments, and the weapon speed rules factored in as well (but not with a particularly well thought out mechanic to be sure). Most people I know rationalized segments away, but that has severe implications for spellcasting in 1e which were usually not addressed. In addition, most other actions were discussed in terms of segments, so you could figure out when things took place.

3. impacts all situations involving threatened areas and those that rely on these rules
*3e only*

To some extent this is also hugely important in 1e, since you had facing and area of effect spells. Determining where people are is important in both editions, 3e adds some factors relating to AoOs, but those are easy enough to ignore if you don't want to use AoOs. Just go back to the 1e method where pulling a potion from your backpack and quaffing it has no negative repercussions and you are right were 1e is in this regard.

4. impacts concealment and cover rules
*You got me here. This shouldn't have been given as an example.*

Okay.

5. impacts attacks of opportunity
*3e only*

This is really just a rehash of point 3, since the AoO rules work off of threatened areas, and you said "rules that rely on those rules" in point 3. I'd suggest that these two points that you call separate points are just a single point.

And it isn't that difficult to work around. Lots of things draw AoOs as a result of a combat maneuver. Just rule that if you want to disarm someone you can't unless you have Improved Disarm. Assume that spellcasting in combat doesn't open the caster up to any additional danger (like in 1e) and run concentration checks off of total damage sustained in a round (like in 1e). Fixed.

6. makes several feats very difficult to work with (e.g. Spring Attack, mobility).
*3e only*

This question is just elements of previous positioning related questions rephrased more specifically. Issues related to movement can be dealt with in 3e just as they could be in 1e, you just have to ignore a lot of positioning issues and move on. Now Spring Attack, Mobility and Tumble aren't that great. Oh well. Weapon Focuse and Weapon Finesse are just as useful as ever, take those instead.

 

[kenjib]

Your list of cascading issues are unimportant because you are failing to separate the essential from inessential.

Your stripped down 1e system is a simplistic "I swing, you swing" system. Nothing wrong with that if you like that sort of game.

It is easy to make 3e exactly that simple. No AoOs. Strip the list of Feats down to 8 or 12. No skill system (just stat checks). Simplify the initiative rules. No bull rush, disarm, etc. Tune down the xp rewards.

That's a good list of changes. Getting rid of skills and most feats does make things easier to handle in such a simplification, but it also means that now you have to re-write the fighter and rogue class and you are incompatible with most published modules and many other materials. You've also lost surprise round mechanics. This is a nice start though. Let's see. Perhaps you could just give the rogue a list of pre-determined skills that are always at 3+level? A few other classes can get skills like this too - wilderness lore for rangers (tracking), spellcraft for wizards. Maybe do the same for fighter with some pre-determined bonus feats, just the really simple ones like power attack, weapon focus, etc. Otherwise you would run out of feats for the fighter with such a small list - especially taking pre-reqs into account.

And guess what? This system is much faster than "1e lite" because it has an easier to use AC system, simpler saving throws, and many fewer charts to consult. And the game balance is still more solid as any version of 1e.

That's interesting. What you would have left becomes very similar to 1e but with the streamlined benefits you mention. You're stripping 3e back to the identifying elements that make it D&D, so I see your point about essential vs. inessential. Hmmm... That's pretty nice. It's kind of like 2.6e.

Of course, if you wanted to add skills that is not going to hurt combat appreciably. Add in feats slowly over the campaign. AoOs are really what slow combat down.

IMHO, I know the 3e rules much better than any 1e/2e version even though I have spent maybe one tenth the amount of time learning them. The rules are simply more consistent and more logical. The best part is that when I have a rule question, I can find the relavent section on my first try 90% of the time. Can you say the same about 1e/2e?

One of the beautiful things about 3e is it is pretty well balanced. Now yanking out mechanics does affect the game balance, but that is in no way a failing of 3e when you are comparing what is left with 1e. 1e really did not have any game balance to speak of.

Your bias for 1e is because you have already done the hard work of customizing the system, and you are not interested in doing the same for 3e even though it would be an easier task. I have no problem with that. But don't confuse your own lethargy with some actual virtue of 1e.

Customizing the system in 1e wasn't any hard work though. It was really pretty inconsequential and many people used some or all of the exact same changes because they were so easy to do. Thanks to your suggestions I'm starting to think that it could be done in 3e now though but there is still a lot more to it than there was in 1e.

Again, I'm not talking about balance here. I'm talking about how one seemingly small change requires a great number of rules modifications. Every monster that has reach is changed, as another example, when you get rid of AoO. When you get rid of skills and feats other parts of the rules, other monsters are losing special abilities that otherwise would have been aspects of Special Qualities or Special Attacks (Monster X is very hard to surprise, for example). When you get rid of certain skills some obstacles and challenges in published modules don't work anymore. There are tiny little issues like this all over the place. Maybe it's no problem just to ignore them all, or work around them all, but still it's just another thing to think about. Almost every aspect of the game has something more to think about or some required modifications when you make such sweeping changes.

Making 3e simple requires that you ignore or modify 80 things instead of just 12 for 1e (no, these numbers are not concrete nor calculated to be accurate). In addition, you need to modify all new material that you bring into the game. This makes it more complicated to manage, even over the long term. I don't think that it's lethargy. I think that it's a more complicated thing to do and it has more consequences, both foreseen and unforeseen.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

kenjib,

Yes, I think the right starting point is a stripped down version of 3e that resembles 1e in flavor but 3e in efficiency. At that point you can add in skills and feats to taste.

IMO, the true essentials of 3e are cleaner AC/ to hit mechanics, more consistent attributes, simplified saves, a flexible skill system (which can be simplified further to various degrees), feats, and more sensible multiclassing rules. IMHO, done properly, "3e lite plus" would run every bit as quickly as "1e lite", even if it has a few more features. Skills are a mixed bag speedwise, but I think they are comparable in difficulty to fudging some kind stat check for the situation. Skills really give the game a lot of bang for buck, especially outside of combat.

Many feats can be used from the start without changes. I would suggest: Skill Focus (if using skills), Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Expertise, Toughness, Dodge, save booster feats, Improved Initiative, Point Blank Shot, and a few magic related feats.

Not sure what to say about converting 3e adventure material. I suppose you have a point there.

 

[kenjib]

Mmmm...need...netbook...

Seriously, I think a D&D 3e Lite netbook might have a good amount of demand. I could be wrong though.

 

[Victim]

Our group hasn't used miniatures for most fights and we've had few problems.

In a small party in situations without much terrain effect, we've had little to no problems. Opening encounter distance needs to be considered along with movement rates. Flanking isn't that difficult. Assuming 2 or more melee combatants coming from the same direction, flanking is acheived pretty much at will with Tumble or by taking an AoO or in two rounds if 5 ft steps are used. All that's really needed is the ability to keep track of distances in one's head and relatively simple situations.

Also, it seems to me like some of the modified items in 1e actually had quite a far reaching effect. For example, removing weapon vs armor modifiers would have quite a vast effect. I've never played 1e, so I'll use the 2e slash/pierce/bludgeon mods. Most armor was less effective against type B weapons, especially plate type armor. Bludgeoning weapons usually did less damage though. Without the special mods, people are more likely to pick swords over maces because they do more damge. Assuming weapons were balanced initially, by removing weapon versus armor, you just dropped the value of an entire class of weapons. Also, many armor types had massive modifiers against certain attack forms. Without the adjustments, the average AC of certain armors will change, thus affecting their value. For example, full plate had +4 against slashing and +3 against piercing. On average, its AC is 2 better with the mods than without.