I like 3E, but I miss...

[Storm Raven]

I miss Inititive every round... if you went first you lived if not, well you got good at making characters.
Weapons speed. I mean really a human with a great sword is the same speed as an equal human with a short sword.

True, that is silly. The guy with the greatsword should be able to attack much quicker than the guy with the short sword. At least then the weapon use would mimic the real world more closely.

Oh? That's not what you meant? You thought that short swords are "quicker" for attacking than the longer and more deadly greatsword? I guess you thought wrong then.

 

[Storm Raven]

That makes it about 300 times as large. Which sounds big until you realize - that makes the Great Wyrm's horde about 2 inches deep.

Actually, in 1st Edition, that would make it 400 times as large.

 

[Grazzt]

[/b]
Then you played with an atypical group of players, unseen by most other gamers in the 1970s and 1980s.

Saying "most" might be a little bit of a stretch. Exactly what qualifies as most? Of all the groups I saw or played in, most (there's that word again) of the guys and chicks were NOT powergamers and really didnt seem to have the desire to be.

So, bottom line? Was 1e balanced? Nope, not in some cases. Does that make it bad? Nope. Were their ways to make powergaming/broken characters? Of course. No rule system can prevent that. Someone will always find a way to exploit the rules. But, overall, the power level of 1e and 2e was significantly lower than it is in 3e.

 

[Mercule]

...stats that didn't need to range into the low twenties to mid thirties just to be effective. So long as the Wizard had an Intelligence of 18, and the Cleric a Wisdom of 18, a character essentially didn't need much else.

Interesting. One of the first things that I noticed (and loved) about 3E is that that bonuses started much lower than in 1e/2e. That means you can have a stat of 14 in something and still not be effectively average.

IMHO, 3E is so much better oriented toward lower stats, it's not even funny. My group would barely be able to tolerate characters without an 18 in their prime requisite in 2E. In 3E, we have had a truckload of characters that have had no 18s whatsoever. At least at 1st level. By 12th or so, the extra stat points usually result in an 18 or better.

 

[Storm Raven]

Saying "most" might be a little bit of a stretch. Exactly what qualifies as most? Of all the groups I saw or played in, most (there's that word again) of the guys and chicks were NOT powergamers and really didnt seem to have the desire to be.

And yet, virtually every group was dominated by multiclassed elven characters. Why? Because, not only were elves "cool", they were also just flat out better than other races, and multiclassed characters were just flat out better than other choices for classes.

So, bottom line? Was 1e balanced? Nope, not in some cases.

Not in the most important sense. Balance between players.

Does that make it bad? Nope. Were their ways to make powergaming/broken characters? Of course. No rule system can prevent that. Someone will always find a way to exploit the rules. But, overall, the power level of 1e and 2e was significantly lower than it is in 3e.

The important thing is the relative power level. And in terms of relative power level, 1st and 2nd Edition were badly out of whack. PCs of supposedly the same experience were of wildly different strength, to such an extent that gauging what would challenge them (as opposed to what they would roll over, or what would kill them instantly) was an enormous pain in the butt, and would potentially vary wildly within a given party.

Plus, in 3e you have to actually work to "unbalance" a character, using supplements and tweaking a character through a dozen levels of advancement, picking just the right combination of feats, skills, and attributes. In 1e and 2e, the unbalancing is built right in to the core mechanic, with no work required other than to say "I want to play an elven fighter/magic-user/cleric".

 

[Grazzt]

And yet, virtually every group was dominated by multiclassed elven characters. Why? Because, not only were elves "cool", they were also just flat out better than other races, and multiclassed characters were just flat out better than other choices for classes.

Again, not true of the groups I was in or saw. Sure, some peeps played elves, but no one really ever multiclassed or dual classed at all, not that I remember. There was that level limit thing remember. Of all the memorable characters I can think of, none were multiclassed. And most were human.

The important thing is the relative power level. And in terms of relative power level, 1st and 2nd Edition were badly out of whack. PCs of supposedly the same experience were of wildly different strength, to such an extent that gauging what would challenge them (as opposed to what they would roll over, or what would kill them instantly) was an enormous pain in the butt, and would potentially vary wildly within a given party.

It wasnt that badly out of whack, IMO. Yep, PCs varied in strength (even when they had the same experience), but so what? Not everything is balanced. Just works out that way. And we never had trouble challenging PCs regardless of experience or level or whatever.

Plus, in 3e you have to actually work to "unbalance" a character, using supplements and tweaking a character through a dozen levels of advancement, picking just the right combination of feats, skills, and attributes. In 1e and 2e, the unbalancing is built right in to the core mechanic, with no work required other than to say "I want to play an elven fighter/magic-user/cleric".

Actually, you can unbalance a character in 3e using nothing more than the core rulebooks. But yeah, adding in the supplements (esp the splatbooks) makes it really easy to unbalance a character.

Yeah, I can see the elven ftr/m-u/clr being used to unbalance things I guess...but, it all depends on how one plays the game I guess. None of us ever played one. Just didnt have the desire to multiclass or whatever.

So- lets just agree to disagree on certain things (1e was unbalanced in areas, 2e was unbalanced in areas, 3e is unbalanced in areas) and steer this thread back on topic....stuff we miss about 1e or 2e.

 

[woodelf]

Saying "most" might be a little bit of a stretch. Exactly what qualifies as most? Of all the groups I saw or played in, most (there's that word again) of the guys and chicks were NOT powergamers and really didnt seem to have the desire to be.

Shared Fantasy is a book-length sociological/anthropological study of RPers. All of the research was done, IIRC, in the 1980-82 range. His sample was so far skewed to what i would consider the powergamer style of play that one of the primary flaws in his study is it presumes that that is the defining style of play, with others being exceptions. That's not a definitive answer, but it's the only non-anecdotal one any of us have.

 

[woodelf]

In 1st or 2nd edition, was there ever a reason to play a single classed character?

Well, duh: in order to dual-class and qualify to become a bard. Now *there's* an overpowered class--it even got to break the dual-class rules.

 

[Storm Raven]

Again, not true of the groups I was in or saw. Sure, some peeps played elves, but no one really ever multiclassed or dual classed at all, not that I remember. There was that level limit thing remember. Of all the memorable characters I can think of, none were multiclassed. And most were human.

After the first year I played, I don't think I saw any human characters played by anyone who wasn't me. And I played 1st Edition from 1978 through 1989. And the overpowered human strategy was to dual class. Which was just like multiclassing, with none of the drawbacks.

It wasnt that badly out of whack, IMO. Yep, PCs varied in strength (even when they had the same experience), but so what? Not everything is balanced. Just works out that way. And we never had trouble challenging PCs regardless of experience or level or whatever.

Except now, for the most part, PCs of similar experience are fairly balanced against one another. As opposed to an elven Ftr7/MU8 supposedly being equivalent in power to a human Ftr8.

Actually, you can unbalance a character in 3e using nothing more than the core rulebooks.

Demonstrate. Many people make this claim, but no one yet has backed it up with an example. Make a 28 point character with appropriate wealth that is wildly unbalanced. Use 3.5. Core rules only.

Yeah, I can see the elven ftr/m-u/clr being used to unbalance things I guess...but, it all depends on how one plays the game I guess. None of us ever played one. Just didnt have the desire to multiclass or whatever.

Then your party missed the biggest power-up to exist in the history of D&D, of any edition. The multiclassing (and dualclassing) rules were not just ripe for abuse, if they had not been part of the 1e PHB and been proposed by someone as an add-on to the system, they would have been tagged as one of the worst examples of abuse one could have thought of.

So- lets just agree to disagree on certain things (1e was unbalanced in areas, 2e was unbalanced in areas, 3e is unbalanced in areas) and steer this thread back on topic....stuff we miss about 1e or 2e.

What do I miss about 1e and 2e? Not much of any significance. There is a reason I switched between D&D (for players) and other games (for value) through the 1980s, and stopped playing D&D altogether in 1990 or so and played other, better designed games that weren't rife with abusable rules.

I miss some of the silly tables in the 1e DMG. I don't miss anything about the pile of rehashed drek that was 2e.

 

[diaglo]

[/b]
Except now, for the most part, PCs of similar experience are fairly balanced against one another. As opposed to an elven Ftr7/MU8 supposedly being equivalent in power to a human Ftr8.

you still get this formula wrong.

a ft7/mu8 = 8 (highest class) + 7/2 (other class lvls added divided by total number of classes) = 11.5 but since they don't have 1/2 classes. it should roughly = an 11th lvl character in some encounters and 12th in others.

not that i'm disagreeing about multiclassing necessary. just your facts and therefore the logic based on the miscalculated facts.