Re-trying 1st Ed.

[diaglo]

It took 14 whole posts for someone to mention C&C!

When I clicked on the thread, I was expecting to be hearing about C&C in post #2.

ha ha.

i claimed the first 3 posts after the OP.

 

[painandgreed]

See, your response would have been much better if you had only included your second paragraph, because that was germane and helpful. You first paragraph, on the other hand, leads to people reporting your post on the basis of it looks like threadcrapping.

Anyone else tempted to be dismissive of the original posters question - just don't post please.

My appologies. The first paragraph was also meant to be helpful even if not expanded and supported very well. First is the assumption that there is a 3.5 flavor that is somehow inhibited by 1E mechanics. I'm not quite sure what that flavor was or what the mechanics in question are. He mentions choices but I am unsure if he is speaking of classes, races, feats, or special manuevers. If there is a preceived incompatablity, then my sugestion is not to make a square peg fit in a round hole. You can very easily say simply wing it and house rule, but I've found that this is essentially what 2E and 3.xE are, versions of AD&D with common house rules found throughout many players written into the game. By time you house rule 1E where you want it, many time you just find yourself with something that will resemble 2E or even 3.xE, and at that point, it's probably easier for everybody just to use the commonly published versions.

This is why the groups I played with switched to 2E. We already had skill systems, crits, self made character classes, and many of the other features of 2E. Some of these we liked the implimentation better than it was done in 2E. However, 2E was conveniently published in a couple of books rather than a couple of books plus several three ring binders of handwritten or typed up notes. Also, new players were already familiar with 2E and old players wouldn't get confused when jumping between games and rule sets. Thus, the path of least resistance was to simply play 2E.

So, back to the question, and how to make 1E more like 3.5 editions which I take to be a matter of "choices" according to the OP. As far as races and classes, between the PHB, UA, OA, and books like Dragonlance, I think there are plenty of choices, Beyond that, you have old Dragon magazines to mine for ideas which can usually be picked up for about $1 and issue on eBay or at a gaming store that has used games. For special manuevers, this could be taken care of by just sitting down and houseruling most of them into 1E ("you must hit AC0 and then role under your strength to do that") if you don't feel like simply winging it as you go. As for feats, you could simply add them, make them common special maneuvers that can perhaps only be attempted by a certain class, or introduce them as proficiencies, either weapon or non-weapon. Again, back to the first paragraph, it seems that most people that go back to 1E (or C&C) are doing so because they find all these options are what is slowing down the game or otherwise making it less fun, and once you bolt them onto 1E, you are essientially playing 3E without the more unified mechanics.

My opinion on C&C. I played it and it made me remember how quickly and hands free 1E flowed. Still, it seemed like two steps forward and two steps back. It adopted some of the easier mechanics of 3E and then made it more complicated to resemble 1E (saving throws), and then abandoned some 3E advances for 1E tradition all together (no unified XP chart). I found it made me want to play either 1E or 3.5 but wasn't a satisfactory solution for either. Still, I'll play it when my friend runs it and suggest people check it out for themselves.

Personally, I find myself with the opposite trouble, how to get 1E flavor with 3.x rules. My line of thinking on that is to replace the XP chart with an exponential one. Return to objective XP for mostners. Dismiss square tactical combat for either winging it or for models with 1" bases and tape measures when needed. Cut it down to core books only. Possibly introduction of some new classes which are essentially 3.x classes with static feat progression as melee fighter, archer, combat cleric, etc. to make creation on NPCs easier. I also wanted a spell casting/fighting "elf" class to go back to D&D, and duskblade seems to work for that.

Anyway, I appologize again if any of this seems dismissive, pompous or whatever. It was all intended as serious conversation and meant to add something to the discussion. If it fails to do so, it is simply my fault in coming up with something interesting to say rather than any malice or trolling.

 

[DungeonMaester]

I enjoyed playing and running 1e. Wouldn't say no to a game, either.

I sometimes find the never-ending character options for 3/3.5e too much and hanker after the simpler days of 1e. Sigh.
Feats, I can live without them. Skills, substitute Int/Dex/Str rolls.
1e spellchuckers kick ass, as do 1e fighters (and rangers, etc.) and monks.

I'd say run 1e and houserule yourself to happiness.

Responding ti the second paragraph, I feel the very oppisite. Other then the weapon's bonus to hit chart, there are not many rules I have a problem with. It is not a problem with 1st Edition or any restrictive rules, just a lack of tons of splat books like 3 has.

In regards to what some one else mentioned earlier, it isn't that two fighter are or are not simmular by what choices of weapons or armor they make, just that the two fighters are not a Swordsage and a Soulborn.

It does not have anything to do with with the classes being over powerful/balanced, I just fell in love with the exotic flavor of 3.5 classes.

And I have a good idea of how I am going to do it.

---Rusty

 

[Faraer]

. . . and in hindsight I would much rather play 3.5 with all the good and bad then 1st ed. Its not because all the rules changes but the spiffy things players can do.

There's nothing that players can do in 3E that they can't in a competently DMed 1E campaign.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

It's all up to you (not the answer you're looking for, I know.) For my group, C&C was the answer, but it isn't for everyone.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Anyway, I appologize again if any of this seems dismissive, pompous or whatever. It was all intended as serious conversation and meant to add something to the discussion. If it fails to do so, it is simply my fault in coming up with something interesting to say rather than any malice or trolling.

No problem, thanks for clarifying (and including even more thoughtful stuff in the most recent post).

Cheers

 

[DungeonMaester]

There's nothing that players can do in 3E that they can't in a competently DMed 1E campaign.

Elaborate. I would like to know how to do a 1st ed. Sword Sage Or a Soul Born so I can pass that knowledge on the players.

---Rusty

 

[painandgreed]

Elaborate. I would like to know how to do a 1st ed. Sword Sage Or a Soul Born so I can pass that knowledge on the players.

Usually, when you had something out of the ordinary, you'd sit down with your DM and run it past them to sign off on. Or it would be something the DM had come up with and let the players play. Much like the two listed above, which are very deviant additions to D&D, it was fairly common for a 1E game to use home brewed stuff made by player or DM. I've seen talent trees, alternate magic systems, skill based mechanics, and much weirder stuff (such as mecha combat rules) integrated into 1E campaigns. I'm completly unfamiliar with the examples you gave, but I suspect they can be converted to 1E mechanics or to otherwise used with such mechanics. So, knowledge to your players would be to take the book to you and say "I want to play one of these. How can we make it work?" It may not be the answer you're looking for, but that's 1E flavor IMHO.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

** post edited because issue already addressed earlier in thread **

 

[RFisher]

Robert has some really good articles about classic D&D on his site.

...& now with some of the warts left over from moving them from infogami to my site cleaned up. (^_^) Well...for the two articles cited.

In regards to what some one else mentioned earlier, it isn't that two fighter are or are not simmular by what choices of weapons or armor they make, just that the two fighters are not a Swordsage and a Soulborn.

I'm not familiar with those classes, so I can't speak to them directly.

But what I am trying to say is that, if you want to try to understand what is great about 1e, then I suggest trying to work within its framework first. A Swordsage or Soulborn in 1e may be a fabulous thing, but if you try to jump straight into that... If you decide to heavily house rule 1e before you've really become comfortable with how it is different from the game you're importing things from... That looks like a recipe for disaster to me. You might as well, IMHO, stick with 3e instead.

But perhaps that's just me.