Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4978198" data-attributes="member: 4937">You can add alot to that.  I don't think that gives the full extent of the simplifications that were in common use by people who thought they were and say they were playing 1e.I never saw your #5 altering races, but I did see:- Not being strict about the turn sequence or predeclaring your actions.- Not tracking segments within the round, or the casting time of spells.- Not paying attention to spell material components.- Not alternating attacks when several combatants had multiple attacks in the round, and instead resolving all attacks when the players turn came up.- Using simplified surprise rules (ei, multiple rounds of surprise aren't possible)- Not disrupting spellcastering when the caster is struck by attacks.And probably alot of other stuff I'm forgetting.I very much disagree however that you can make such simplifications and not lose anything.  In particular, I adore the weapon vs. AC modifiers (although, they aren't particularly well balanced, at least the weapons are much more balanced when they are taken into account, and a little tweaking makes all sorts of weapons viable), and if you didn't play 1e with them you really missed out.  It took a little bit of extra prep (essentially, I created attack tables for each character), but once that small hurdle was handled combat actually resolved faster (because I'd already added up all the fiddly modifiers) than when I wasn't playing with the rules and combat was much more interesting and 'realistic'.   And the very fact that longsword/two-handed sword weren't clearly the most superior weapons was alot fun.Plus alot of the simplifications I saw tended to make the game less balanced.  Thieves sucked hard at high levels anyway, but without multiple surprise rounds of backstabbing, they had virtually no way of handling anything by themselves.  Wizards ruled when spells got off in a single segment, material components were assumed to be on hand regardless of how esoteric/rare/cumbersome, and casting couldn't be disrupted, and so forth.  The game was just better when you played it by the rules, and house rules made by players that actually knew the rules tended to be better reasoned thought out.  There are still aspects of the D&D and 1e AD&D game that I think are superior to 3e, and in some ways both were tactically superior simulations to 4e because they did a better job of making the game resolve in a less 'turn based' fashion.</blockquote>

Verification