I like 3E, but I miss...

[FrankTrollman]

you compare based on xps. and use the xp charts of the classes. and then you want to base it on what is "equal and or balanced" vs classes.

But Stormraven is right. People got absolute amounts of XP in that game - getting to 7th level in Fighter and then spending the rest of your life as a wizard cost you less than a level in absolute XP.

And since there was no scaling XP awards like we have now - that's all that matters. Dual Classing was 100% good and 0% bad. The XP charts in previous editions were not intended to be balanced - and it showed.

Right about the time a Wizard starts getting more power per level than a Fighter - he's also taking less total XP to rise in level than a Fighter. The Wizard hits level 9 first - and gets more for doing so.

-Frank

 

[diaglo]

But Stormraven is right. People got absolute amounts of XP in that game - getting to 7th level in Fighter and then spending the rest of your life as a wizard cost you less than a level in absolute XP.

And since there was no scaling XP awards like we have now - that's all that matters. Dual Classing was 100% good and 0% bad. The XP charts in previous editions were not intended to be balanced - and it showed.

Right about the time a Wizard starts getting more power per level than a Fighter - he's also taking less total XP to rise in level than a Fighter. The Wizard hits level 9 first - and gets more for doing so.

-Frank

i said i didn't disagree with multiclassing just the logic he used to present his argument.


the only "balance" is the stat requirements. dual classing had a major stat requirement if you rolled normally. only if you used the alternate UA ones did you really have a shot statistically.

heck, i never had anyone qualify for the paladin class pre-UA.

 

[Mercule]

i gave you the formula for comparing the ECL of a multiclass which is really want you want to use. not one for one xp comparison when you use 1edADnD.

Okay, can you drop it down a notch for those of us not interested in a grudge match? (this isn't necessarily directed just a diaglo)

Seriously. I'd really like to know how you figure that the formula you gave is the best option.

Sure, I understand that if you're making high-level characters from scratch, the 7/8 F/MU is a fair match for the 11th level Fighter. Still, are you saying that if two characters spend their entire adventuring career together, that the F/MU is going to end up travelling with an 11th level Fighter rather than an 8th level one?

That seems counter to logic to me. I have to assume that I'm missing something, and would really like to know what.

 

[WizarDru]

Two things:

1) As much as it suprises me to say so now, the Artwork, particularly Erol Otus, Dave Trampier and Jeff Dee. Back in the day, I often viewed Otus as an untalented, cartoony hack. I now feel 180 degrees opposite, and miss his distinctive style terribly. Pity that Trampier is driving cabs instead of doing artwork, but c'est la vie. The artwork was just more distinctive and evocative, back then. Things like the 'Magic Mouth' drawing or the 'Paladin in Hell' in the PHB....they made you want to know the story behind them. They intrigued you. The artwork these days is nice...but it seems very calculated, somehow. As often as not, they're just character studies of some fantasy being, and don't really tell a story.

2)The Sense of Wonder. And that's not something that has anything to do with the edition, but with the newness. I remember saving my allowance for weeks to buy the Red Box set, and how excited I was, when I was reading through it. I remember how eager I was to make my own dungeon. I remember the excitement of getting my PHB, DMG and MM, and just flipping through them. I remember making my first 'module', using some of the old TSR 'blue maps' and then writing a big module, during summer vacation.

sigh.

Good times. Good times.

(And guys, you did hear Henry ask you to take it down a notch on the ol' hostility meter, right? I mean, we're all friends here, so relax.)

 

[CleverName]

I miss...

...being able to play all day and all night long on snowdays in my friend's basement with roaring fire at my back, a cold coke in front of me.

...which is to say that what I miss can be chalked up to nostalgia for being a young gamer geek without so many real-world responsibilities.

I would not trade the new system for any of its earlier incarnations.

 

[Storm Raven]

and your use of using what you want and ignoring what you don't is amusing. you want a broken 1ed game. so you use the rules accordingly. just like people can do with the newer editions.

I use the rules as written. You see, experience poiint table are part of the rules of the game. Your formula appeared nowhere in the rules for 1e. Ever. Basically, you made up a metric for assessing the true power of a multiclassed character. The only valid basis for comparing the power of two characters is to compare them at equivalent experience point totals, since that is supposed to be the measure of their relative power.

But all your metric does is establish that the standard rules are broken. Since the standard rules use epxerience points as the measure for characters, and those experience point totals show that characters at the same total can vary in power terms by huge amounts.

you compare based on xps. and use the xp charts of the classes. and then you want to base it on what is "equal and or balanced" vs classes.

I want to base it on how the rules of 1e actually worked, which is what we are talking about. Perhaps you want to base it on your mental image of what the game should have been, but here, we are dealing with what the rules actually were.

i gave you the formula for comparing the ECL of a multiclass which is really want you want to use. not one for one xp comparison when you use 1edADnD.

ECL is a concept that didn't actually exist in the 1e rule set. So your argument is irrelevant to the discussion of what the 1e rules considered to be equal characters. Experience point totals were what mattered, since that was how characters were measured. Your metric is nonsensical when applied to 1e material.

 

[Storm Raven]

i said i didn't disagree with multiclassing just the logic he used to present his argument.

Given that your logic has no basis in the actual rules of 1e D&D, I'd say that your disagreement can be noted, and discarded as irrelevant as lacking in factual basis.

the only "balance" is the stat requirements. dual classing had a major stat requirement if you rolled normally. only if you used the alternate UA ones did you really have a shot statistically.

And the alternate UA rules were part of the 1e rule set. Core rules no less.

Plus, multiclassing had extremely low qualifying requirements, and was just as powerfully broken overall as dual classing.

 

[diaglo]

[/b]Your formula appeared nowhere in the rules for 1e. Ever. Basically, you made up a metric for assessing the true power of a multiclassed character. The only valid basis for comparing the power of two characters is to compare them at equivalent experience point totals, since that is supposed to be the measure of their relative power.

But all your metric does is establish that the standard rules are broken. Since the standard rules use epxerience points as the measure for characters, and those experience point totals show that characters at the same total can vary in power terms by huge amounts.

you must know i didn't make that rule up arbitrarily? it came from somewhere else.

ECL is a concept that didn't actually exist in the 1e rule set. So your argument is irrelevant to the discussion of what the 1e rules considered to be equal characters. Experience point totals were what mattered, since that was how characters were measured. Your metric is nonsensical when applied to 1e material.

yes, i know the term ECL wasn't in 1ed. i was trying to put it in terms so others would understand. the concept did exist then. just b/c you didn't personally read it, doesn't mean much to me either.

you and i both know i am not that Original. i only use terms and concepts from other sources. and since we are talking about 1ed. it must have been a source from then.

 

[Cedric]

By the time I've gotten around to reading this post, I see it's now devolved into an argument of the balance of 1st edition play.

Well...let me throw in my thoughts then.

1st edition play had no balance. You want to know what I miss? I miss the complete lack of balance...

Everyone in the group does NOT have to be equal to contribute and have fun. Everyone can still bring something unique to the group without being able to deal out the same damage per second across the board.

Balance was completely irrelevent. Why did you play a single class elf? Because you wanted too. Because your character was more about who and less about what.

The image meant more than the stats. No one messed with a high level wizard. The ability to cast 9th level spells placed you in the same power range as some of the gods. This was a lifetime worth of work and effort. A human at this point in their life would be contemplating turning into a Lich (if evil) or continued existence with wishes, potions of longevity, clones and simulacrums if not evil.

In terms of pure power, they would be second to none. Able to destroy armies and lay waste to countries...but they didn't. Why? Because they understood what Steven Brust said, "No matter how powerful the wizard, a knife between his shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style."

I miss simple character creation. Dang, I'm bored...what are we going to do? I dunno...hey, let's play D&D, I'll run. *10 minutes go by* Ok, you guys enter a small village...

I miss the random chance of having psionics. Don't get me wrong...they were completely broken, you had to change your whole campaign if someone had them. But what people don't realize is that if you roll psionics and don't roll well for your follow up rolls, you are eventually a dead man. If you GM is rolling "by the book" the random psionic encounter table (25% of rolling on that, if an encounter happens and psionics have been recently used) has Demon Lords on it...and the like.

But let me tell you...there is nothing in 3e to compare to the heart stopping thrill of watching those dice roll and come to stop on the table while you pray for a 97+ (roughly) to get psionics.

Don't get me wrong...3e is a lot more advanced game system and includes a much, much needed skill system. But there is a lot to miss in 1e and a bit worth missing in 2e.

Cedric

 

[Cedric]

By the way...there is precident in 1st edition for calculating the approximate character level by taking the highest level of a multi-class character and adding 1/3rd round down for any other levels.

This was the way the 3e conversion guide recommended doing it...but there was some stuff from way back in 1st ed that had you do it this way too.

Yes, the xp doesn't equal out that way. But then, in 1st ed it was assumed you handed xp out secretly and everyone did NOT get the same xp. That depended on GM though.

Cedric