Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hawken" data-source="post: 2400232" data-attributes="member: 23619">Yeah, so? I've played D&D for over 25 years too. More than half of that as a DM, so, I'd say I've got enough experience with the rules to debate you any day of the week. Not so obviously. The 3.5 could be converted to 1e, or both to 2e. Or maybe to Marvel? The options are limitless! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /> Says who? You? 3.5e fighter has feats, skills, etc. 1e fighter gets superior magic and magic items and whatever other 1e goodies there are. The comparison should be made because of the differences. If you take a 1e fighter and force him to fight a 3.5e fighter using 3.5e rules without his own 1e rules and gear of course the 1e fighter would lose. And vice versa.Perhaps, but there were plenty of artifacts in plenty of adventures that PCs could get unless the DM just took them out of the adventure (but then what would be the point?!). And yes, 3.5 DMs can give out what they want, but when they start doing that, it invariably screws up the balance of the game--that never seemed to be the case with 1e games. When 1e characters managed to get an artifact, there was a real sense of accomplishment because of all the skill, luck and lost companions involved, and only butt-munch DMs would take that away from their players. And if all you finish your rebuttal with, "...this babble...is nonsense," then maybe you should find a different topic or someone less intelligent to debate with. I never said that "good old days was better than today". Don't try to justify your position by accusing me of snobbery or putting words in my mouth. 3e characters are not more powerful. They are more customizable. Big difference. No one has yet proven that a 1e 18th fighter with his 1e gear is going to get smoked by a 3.5 18th fighter with his 3.5 gear. And as I've mentioned, 1e classes like the assassin, monk and a few others would smoke their 3.5 counterparts. Especially wizards. Rangers back then were pretty sweet and the psionic characters back then could walk all over the psionic classes today. Does that mean that 1e is better? No. Just different. The game was different back then. It would be like comparing your grandfather's life growing up to your own. Things are different now than back then and if you were to try and hack it in your grandfather's time you probably couldn't. People back then had different rules and did things on a daily or regular basis that could get them thrown in jail (or at least slapped with a lawsuit) nowadays. Same with D&D. Yes, 3.5 is much more customizable, but there's still a charm to 1e (and even 2e) that likely won't fade. A 1e character that could defeat a dragon, devil lord or demon prince was a bad-@ss and everyone knew it. Hell, they got followers (and castles if I remember correctly) at 9th level without having to take a feat for it! Nowadays, anyone can whip up a character around 10th level that could take out balors, pit fiends and dragons with hardly any effort (as long as the rolls aren't too bad). That's just not the same kind of excitement or sense of accomplishment, and the rewards definitely aren't the same.</blockquote>

Verification