Scotley's and Leif's Constables of the 14th Ward [3.5E D&D] [OOC 02]

[Rhun]

It's WAYY simpler than 3.5E, but much closer to 1E than 4E. In fact, it looks an awful lot like 1E so far.

Funny, I think 3.5 is actually simpler than 4E. And 1E (AD&D) isn't as "uncomplicated' as people like to think it is...most people just didn't use about 50% of the rules.

 

[Helfdan]

We ran through one session of DnD next. To me it felt like another 'd20 variant with a retro flavor', such as Castles and Crusades or DCC. However, things to keep in mind...

1- What we are playing may or may not resemble the final product

2- We only get the first 3 levels... which to me, have been VERY similar in Basic D&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, and even 4e! Higher level playtest should showcase the difference better

3- The recent article regarding stable AC, to hit, and skill DCs throughout all levels, with advancement reflected by damage and hit points, sounds truly innovative... but we don't know if they'll adopt it!

 

[Scotley]

Funny, I think 3.5 is actually simpler than 4E. And 1E (AD&D) isn't as "uncomplicated' as people like to think it is...most people just didn't use about 50% of the rules.

Interesting points. 4e did a good job of uncomplicated some things like saves, skills and defenses and magic. But often at the expense of choice. The DM's work is simplified in many ways. So in those ways I see it as a simpler game.

Then they gave characters a complex array of powers instead of the old 'roll to hit and do damage'. So that piece got way more complex as you try to muddle through all the advantages and moves and partial actions as well as changes based on being bloodied. Starts to get really complex as you figure in terrain. You have to have a clear picture of the battle field to make it work. All more complex to my mind at least. For all that the race and character class and equipment options feel pretty stiff and confining to me.

1e is very complex in that there aren't rules for lots of things and when there are they don't use the same system. They often feel cumbersome and tacked on.

3/3.5 simplified much of that with the universal d20 mechanic. How often do you use percentile dice in 3.5? So, but at the same time 3.5 is all about options. So many choices of feats, races, weapons, classes and ways to combine them. That's what appeals to me about 3.5.

 

[Scotley]

We ran through one session of DnD next. To me it felt like another 'd20 variant with a retro flavor', such as Castles and Crusades or DCC. However, things to keep in mind...

1- What we are playing may or may not resemble the final product

2- We only get the first 3 levels... which to me, have been VERY similar in Basic D&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, and even 4e! Higher level playtest should showcase the difference better

3- The recent article regarding stable AC, to hit, and skill DCs throughout all levels, with advancement reflected by damage and hit points, sounds truly innovative... but we don't know if they'll adopt it!

I definitely got that Castles and Crusades vibe in reading it. I must agree it is hard to evaluate. We have dozens of books of material for 3.5e and 4e and less than a hundred pages of Next. Makes it hard to form a full comparison.

I am curious how they will scale things to higher levels. None of the editions has ever been really great at high level play to my mind.

 

[Rhun]

Then they gave characters a complex array of powers instead of the old 'roll to hit and do damage'. So that piece got way more complex as you try to muddle through all the advantages and moves and partial actions as well as changes based on being bloodied. Starts to get really complex as you figure in terrain. You have to have a clear picture of the battle field to make it work. All more complex to my mind at least. For all that the race and character class and equipment options feel pretty stiff and confining to me.

This is my feeling of 4E right here. Many of the special power have a special mechanic instead of just Attack vrs AC, and if feels more complex. Especially when I don't have my books handy.

I think I just feel 3E is not complicated because all the core rules are online. I don't need to go through a book to find something, I just jump on over to the SRD.

 

[Helfdan]

3E is, in my opinion, an excellent set of rules for a quite accurate simulation using a d20. The basic system is so solid, that it works even in adaptations such as mutants and masterminds and star wars.

It's weakness comes in at mid to high levels, as Scotley said. The attack bonuses scales so quickly that the armor becomes like the points in Whose line is it anyway: it just don't matter.

That's why the E6 fix is appealing to so many people.

I enjoyed 1st edition greatly, although I agree it does not have a single mechanic. Indeed, Gary and Dave had no precedent, so they made rules up as they saw fit, making the system somewhat patchwork. I actually prefer the Moldvay version of Basic/Expert, where it clearly stated that you had mechanics for combat. Everything else was an ability check, with penalties or bonuses applied by the DM.

Forgive my rambling...

 

[Leif]

Funny, I think 3.5 is actually simpler than 4E. And 1E (AD&D) isn't as "uncomplicated' as people like to think it is...most people just didn't use about 50% of the rules.

I disagree heartily. I think you're just more used to 3.5, plus, as you also said, you always had the SRD to rely upon. 3.5 & Pathfinder both require MUCH more work on the DM's part to create an adventure. Sheesh! Just the stat block for ONE orc takes up most of a sheet of paper! I admit that you right about AD&D 1E, though -- most rules there are ad hoc responses, rather than a unified and coherent system.

We ran through one session of DnD next. To me it felt like another 'd20 variant with a retro flavor', such as Castles and Crusades or DCC. However, things to keep in mind...

1- What we are playing may or may not resemble the final product

2- We only get the first 3 levels... which to me, have been VERY similar in Basic D&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, and even 4e! Higher level playtest should showcase the difference better

3- The recent article regarding stable AC, to hit, and skill DCs throughout all levels, with advancement reflected by damage and hit points, sounds truly innovative... but we don't know if they'll adopt it!

Very good points, Helfdan, and I agree about the retro feel of 'Next. Time will tell, I suppose. Personally, I still like AD&D 1E games and D&D 4E games, with some Pathfinder/3.5 E games thrown in for good measure.

Interesting points. 4e did a good job of uncomplicated some things like saves, skills and defenses and magic. But often at the expense of choice. The DM's work is simplified in many ways. So in those ways I see it as a simpler game.

1e is very complex in that there aren't rules for lots of things and when there are they don't use the same system. They often feel cumbersome and tacked on.

3/3.5 simplified much of that with the universal d20 mechanic. How often do you use percentile dice in 3.5? So, but at the same time 3.5 is all about options. So many choices of feats, races, weapons, classes and ways to combine them. That's what appeals to me about 3.5.

I agree that 4E is a total cakewalk for DMs! I love it! Just turn to a random page in a random monster book, and start scaling stuff on the fly to meet the party's abilities. Easy, peasy, goblin-squeezy!

I definitely got that Castles and Crusades vibe in reading it. I must agree it is hard to evaluate. We have dozens of books of material for 3.5e and 4e and less than a hundred pages of Next. Makes it hard to form a full comparison.

I am curious how they will scale things to higher levels. None of the editions has ever been really great at high level play to my mind.

Also good points! I've never had the pleasure of Castles & Crusades.

3E is, in my opinion, an excellent set of rules for a quite accurate simulation using a d20. The basic system is so solid, that it works even in adaptations such as mutants and masterminds and star wars.

It's weakness comes in at mid to high levels, as Scotley said. The attack bonuses scales so quickly that the armor becomes like the points in Whose line is it anyway: it just don't matter.

That's why the E6 fix is appealing to so many people.

I enjoyed 1st edition greatly, although I agree it does not have a single mechanic. Indeed, Gary and Dave had no precedent, so they made rules up as they saw fit, making the system somewhat patchwork. I actually prefer the Moldvay version of Basic/Expert, where it clearly stated that you had mechanics for combat. Everything else was an ability check, with penalties or bonuses applied by the DM.

Forgive my rambling...

You're forgiven! And thanks for rambling. It kept Scotley quiet for once! I also agree with your evaluation of 1E AD&D. Gygax and Arneson were creating methodologies out of whole cloth and making things up (seemingly) as they went along. Personally, I really admire how they used ability checks and Saving Throws vs. Pertification to fill in lots and lots of gray areas. It didn't always make perfect sense, but it was a convenient method of adjudication that was easy to understand and use, and it kept the action of the game flowing smoothly, which was a much higher goal than mathematical precision.

 

[Rhun]

Just the stat block for ONE orc takes up most of a sheet of paper! I admit that you right about AD&D 1E, though -- most rules there are ad hoc responses, rather than a unified and coherent system.

What's a stat block? You mean you just don't throw together stats on the fly and run the battle?

 

[Leif]

What's a stat block? You mean you just don't throw together stats on the fly and run the battle?

Sure, but I sometimes need to read through a stat block to find some unexpected something to pull on the PCs.

 

[Rhun]

Sure, but I sometimes need to read through a stat block to find some unexpected something to pull on the PCs.

That's what your imagination is for, my friend!