My, how the adventures have changed...

[Wik]

By the way, for those who were wondering - I actually PREFER 3e to all the other editions. I just find that some of hte considerations that go into prepping 3e adventures were not there in earlier editions.

And, yeah, I was being a little snarky. I'm doped up on T3s right now.

Looking back, I probably shouldn't have made those "points", since they ARE debatable. But, really, I think those generic adventures HAVE changed from edition to edition.

For starters, in earlier editions, that "larger goblin" probably had a +1 or +2 to attack, and maybe double hit points. In 3.5, he has levels in a class, more abilities, at LEAST double hit points, better hit progression, better saves, and probably innate magical gear to boot.

Not necessarily a complaint (actually, it isn't - I like how goblins and whatnot can be customizable like that... just look at the current PbP I gm!). Just an observation.

I didn't know that BECMI rounds were ten seconds long. I actually like that. Should remember it next time I try to get a nostalgia game going on.

And regarding that "nostaligia" factor - my game of choice when I was 12 was 2nd edition. Don't ask me why, I was silly in my youth. I hate it now, while I will always have a place in my heart for BECMI.

 

[Wik]

Okay, make it a 4d6 damage poison. Or a 5d6 one, or whatever. It's all still just numbers - make the poison lethal enough and the Rogue dies.

And, frankly, I fail to see how the game easily modelling poisons of different lethality can be considered anything other than a good thing. Oh no, the Rogue might actually survive!

IN early editions of the game, poisons were "if you fail, you die". Later on, there were a variety of different poison types, but most still fall into the "Death" category.

Just trying to point out that, in earlier editions of the game, poison was much more likely to kill you.

 

[delericho]

Just trying to point out that, in earlier editions of the game, poison was much more likely to kill you.

Understood. If I was excessively snarky, I apologise.

 

[Wik]

I think the whole point of this thread is snarkiness, my friend. I should put it in the title.

 

[Rabelais]

Nicely done, Wik.

In 2E, my players would have tied Finnaeus's hands and brought him along, using him as bait to draw out the monsters. If he survived, he would have been forced to open the chest.

Finally, the PC's would have stripped him naked and chased him back to town.

Ah, good times!

In 3.5? well, lets just say that it would be a criminal waste of a valuable food source to do something like that.

 

[Wik]

I'm sorry, but I believe Cannibalism doesn't count as true "food", and sustaining off other people would at least fatigue you for the day.

Let's be realistic, here.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

Kudos on the thread, Wik. A very fun read.

 

[Slife]

I'm sorry, but I believe Cannibalism doesn't count as true "food", and sustaining off other people would at least fatigue you for the day.

Let's be realistic, here.

This is why my parties always have multiple races. It isn't cannibalism if it's a different species.

 

[Wik]

Remind me not to be the only human in your party, Slife. Something tells me no one wants to be the Aarakocra - "tastes like chicken!"

 

[VirgilCaine]

A beleaguered village in the wilderness provides an evening of shelter for the heroes. While staying at the local inn,

Wow, that village must see a lot of travelers to have an inn.