What details do you miss from older editions?

[ph0rk]

Bah, I had always thought of the artwork as somewhat dated. I rather like the new look for armor and weapons; it sort of serves as a reminder that the fluff of your game can be any way you want.

The level caps, wacky dual classing/multiclassing and restricted classes by race were a very antiquated and, imho, poorly thought out mechanic. I sure as hell don't miss that!

As for being able to whip out an NPC in minutes; that still isn't hard to do, unless you have a shelf full of 3rd party stuff and you allow ALL OF IT.

oh, and don't get me started on the old thac0 progressions vs the new BABs...


I miss being frustrated by clunky mechanics and archetypal class choices at character creation.

Oh, I guess I miss the decent saves fighters used to get in 2e...

 

[Talmun]

I wonder if some (if not most) of the things listed here aren't missed due to nostalgia more than anything else, not that nostalgia is bad, I'm just saying...

You know what I miss?
Nothing.
There is nothing about any previous edition that I liked enough to miss.

Well, some of the art was nice (Book of Artifacts cover...).

 

[Belegbeth]

Bah, I had always thought of the artwork as somewhat dated. I rather like the new look for armor and weapons; it sort of serves as a reminder that the fluff of your game can be any way you want.
...

If by "dated" you mean that earlier edition art sometimes actually tried to represent what MEDIEVAL amour and weapons looked like, then dated is good! (Okay, Otus's stuff was occasionally pretty wild, to be admitted, but his art had other virtues.)

And how does the rather uniform style adopted by current WotC artists suggest that "the fluff of your game can be any way you want"? A VARIETY of different styles would accomplish that task with greater success, IMO.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

I also miss Weapon Speed Factors. I used those fairly extensively. I also miss the punching/wrestling charts...hmmm....I wonder if those could be used in 3e, modified for any combat situation..........hmmmmmmm

 

[diaglo]

In truth, there are no "better" editions. Only editions we like better.

and that is the truth of which i speak. there is only one true game. only one game that is the best. and that is OD&D. OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing. i don't know who this we is you include....

unless you count me, myself, and i as three.

 

[Mr Gone]

Morale is the big one for me.

 

[Arnwyn]

1) Weapon Speed Factors. You guys actually used these?

Yes.

3) Artwork. I think that this is just really subjective.

You don't say? Duh.

4) Halflings That Were More Tolkiensian. So, make that flavor text yourself.

Done and done (as noted, at least, in my particular post).

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

and that is the truth of which i speak. there is only one true game. only one game that is the best. and that is OD&D. OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing. i don't know who this we is you include....

unless you count me, myself, and i as three.

Chooses to pretty much ignore Diaglo from here on out.

 

[diaglo]

Chooses to pretty much ignore Diaglo from here on out.

thanks. please do. it will save me the trouble.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

If by "dated" you mean that earlier edition art sometimes actually tried to represent what MEDIEVAL amour and weapons looked like, then dated is good! (Okay, Otus's stuff was occasionally pretty wild, to be admitted, but his art had other virtues.)

And how does the rather uniform style adopted by current WotC artists suggest that "the fluff of your game can be any way you want"? A VARIETY of different styles would accomplish that task with greater success, IMO.

Agreed.