Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="amethal" data-source="post: 2236085" data-attributes="member: 22784">I liked all editions of D&amp;D / AD&amp;D. They were and are a great way to have fun.What I didn't like about 1st edition was greatly outnumbered by what I did like. However, as this is a thread about dislikes :-- the fact that we had to ignore chunks of the rules to get a decent game e.g. psionics, weapons vs armour, weapon speed factors- the virtual impossibility of rolling high enough to play a paladin or ranger- magic users being useless at low levels- the complicated (at least to us) method of calculating XP for killing monsters- there being no reason to play a human (as our campaigns never lasted long enough for demihuman level limits to matter)- almost everything in Unearthed Arcana- the four page errata sheet that came with my copy of Unearthed ArcanaOther stuff which people have complained about didn't bother us at the time - non-weapon proficiencies were fine, we didn't mind the racial class / level restrictions, all those tables, the lack of rules for common situations. Its only when these have been &quot;fixed&quot; that I realised they were problems.Now it feels like a more innocent age, somehow. At least the DMs never had to worry about how they were going to a) houserule the persistent spell / divine metamagic combination; andb) deal with some whining player who has built his entire character concept around abusing this combination and takes it as a personal affront when I explain that I've used &quot;old school DM fiat&quot; to outlaw itAnyway, Castles &amp; Crusades is looking more and more like my next RPG purchase -&nbsp; and the C&amp;C Players Handbook costs less than any of WOTCs publications.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="amethal, post: 2236085, member: 22784"] I liked all editions of D&D / AD&D. They were and are a great way to have fun. What I didn't like about 1st edition was greatly outnumbered by what I did like. However, as this is a thread about dislikes :- - the fact that we had to ignore chunks of the rules to get a decent game e.g. psionics, weapons vs armour, weapon speed factors - the virtual impossibility of rolling high enough to play a paladin or ranger - magic users being useless at low levels - the complicated (at least to us) method of calculating XP for killing monsters - there being no reason to play a human (as our campaigns never lasted long enough for demihuman level limits to matter) - almost everything in Unearthed Arcana - the four page errata sheet that came with my copy of Unearthed Arcana Other stuff which people have complained about didn't bother us at the time - non-weapon proficiencies were fine, we didn't mind the racial class / level restrictions, all those tables, the lack of rules for common situations. Its only when these have been "fixed" that I realised they were problems. Now it feels like a more innocent age, somehow. At least the DMs never had to worry about how they were going to a) houserule the persistent spell / divine metamagic combination; and b) deal with some whining player who has built his entire character concept around abusing this combination and takes it as a personal affront when I explain that I've used "old school DM fiat" to outlaw it Anyway, Castles & Crusades is looking more and more like my next RPG purchase - and the C&C Players Handbook costs less than any of WOTCs publications. [/QUOTE]

Verification