What do you dislike about 1E?

[VirgilCaine]

I also dislike that the NPC personality tables use too many different types of dice, making generating a personality annoying.

 

[National Acrobat]

Once every 1d4 rounds I believe.

Well there's a rule I won't be using.

Silly, limiting the amount of fiery death a dragon can use.

It's a dragon fer crying out loud!

 

[MerricB]

I wouldn't say they work really, really well, but I would say that they -- like a lot of D&D mechanics and genre conventions -- have a kernel of something that works really, really well, despite a number of obvious flaws.

After all, you don't have to study the D&D combat system to realize it's pretty wacky: hitting doesn't mean hitting, damage doesn't mean damage, healing doesn't mean healing, etc. What isn't obvious is that it works better than other systems that seem to make sense (when you're reading them in a rulebook).

No, I think D&D combat works really, really well: because this is a game, not a simulation of real combat. In fact, it is a game based on heroic fantasy combat, which is an odd little beast in itself.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Well there's a rule I won't be using.

Silly, limiting the amount of fiery death a dragon can use.

It's a dragon fer crying out loud!

I'm sorry? The 1e rule of a dragon can only breathe 3 times per day is somehow better?

Cheers!

 

[the Jester]

Boy do I love 1e-- I'd be much more likely to run a 1e game than a 2e game these days, that's for sure!

A few things I did not like:

Unarmed combat
d4 HD monks (even with 2d4 at 1st level)
No basic bard class
the spell chant.

 

[VirgilCaine]

the spell chant.

What's wrong with it?

 

[mmadsen]

No, I think D&D combat works really, really well: because this is a game, not a simulation of real combat.

D&D combat is both a game and a simulation. We don't, after all, play poker to see who wins a combat. We want a combat system that at least tips its hat toward combat.

Other games forgot that they were games. They tried to provide a pure simulation. They, many would argue, were not fun -- or they weren't as fun as a game like D&D.

That's The Genius of D&D: classes, levels, hit points, and dungeons may not make great sense, but they make a great game.

That said, a system that maintained the fun of D&D while making more sense would be even better. That's why I made this suggestion:

I think D&D might have worked better with a single attack roll vs. AC to put a unit hors de combat (disabled or otherwise out of action) -- as long as PCs and major NPCs had Fate Points to soak up the first few near-deaths.

 

[National Acrobat]

I'm sorry? The 1e rule of a dragon can only breathe 3 times per day is somehow better?

Cheers!

No, it's not. I don't use that either.

My dragons can breather whenever, however and as frequently as they wish.

I would have figured 3E would have fixed that.

I have never, ever in 25+ years of being a player and DM had anyone limit a dragon's breathing at all. It's one of those things that I figured would have been eliminated.

 

[Janx]

I hated the following:
Racial Level limits
static skill progresssion % for thieves (all 5th level thieves are the same)
assassin class (it's a job, not a class)
psionics
multi-classing rules
XP for finding treasure
to-hit tables versus armor
spell memorization (sorceror style casting was preferred)
3d6 straight down
humans are boring effect
no skills
no metrics to prevent monty-haulism

[EDIT]Wait, there's more...
cloakers
piercers
stumpwithabunny-onits
and all the other corny built to trick-a-PC-in-a-dungeon monsters
XP Progresssion AND individual XP rules (more of a 2E complaint, slow XP table for mages AND skimpy XP for casting, do one or the other)
[/EDIT]

Janx

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I'm sorry? The 1e rule of a dragon can only breathe 3 times per day is somehow better?

Cheers!

Not better, but neither is it worse. Just different.