What do you miss from the good ol' days?

[Raven Crowking]

Everything I missed about earlier editions I simply houseruled in; everything I like about 3.0 and 3.5 I kept. For example, I kept cover and concealment and weapon size from 3.0 (weapon size modified ala AE). I made classes more iconic, and added class restrictions based on race (including human subtype). I added a simplified weapon speed system, and spell research rules modified from 2e. I used Priest-Thrall prestige classes instead of specialty priests, and gave the potential of racial classes to everyone.

In essence, I refuse to simply "miss" things about previous editions. I made substantive changes to the rules, replacing the core rules with my houserule book (over 600 pages) that includes all of the SRD which is used in the campaign world. Players need carry no other book to the game.


RC

 

[robberbaron]

Facing: Facing rules gave meaning to the use of minis. Why buy a mini as opposed to using a poker chip? So you can tell which end is forward, which side was protected bythe shield and so forth. Sure it meant your character was stuck in one direction for 60 seconds at a time (a round in 1E was one minute not 6 seconds) but hey it was so worth it.

Bit of both for me.
It meant different bonuses depending where you were standing but meant that players couldn't fiddle with their figures willy-nilly. They had to leave them where they were or spend an attack turning (or something like that. Heck, it's years since we played 1e).

 

[Harmon]

Getting off work on Friday, going to Coyote6's house, taking a shower, gaming 'til 0-God-Its-What-Time-30, crashing on his floor, waking up, rousting him and DarthJaye, then getting going again.

Sunday morning we'd stop.

Sometimes during the weekend I would go grocery shopping, go home, and we'd start again.

As far as the game goes, I miss the older versions of D&D like I miss a confused drunken uncle, there were some good times, but more often then not he's more fun now that he's dead and gone. I know that some people here like the OD&D, but I just don't see the point, there are lots of things you could not do that you can in the newer editions (punch someone- actually had a 9th lvl ranger knock someone out with three punches), plus the time table makes more sense (1 min = 1 combat round - give me a break).

 

[billd91]

What I miss:

short stat blocks

having no real responsibilities other than schoolwork, so we could play all weekend

specialty priests

hobbity halflings


That's pretty much about it. I much prefer the 3E versions of D&D.

 

[Mythmere1]

Still playing AD&D (or rather, "back to playing" it). Nothing to miss.

 

[Voadam]

Making full NPCs on the fly or in a matter of minutes.

In 3e I use a lot of predone stats when I can and modify to taste because it is a much more complicated process but it used to be really easy to take an entry of Human Fighter 12th level, and just make them on the spot.

 

[Greg K]

What do I miss:

Barbarian: being non-raging and being from a culture that determines starting weapon proficieny and some skills (or better David Howery's rewrite of the class from Dragon). Easier now to get replicate using the UA barbarian hunter variant and the weapon group option from UA.

2e specialty priests

Wizard Specialists: the missing 2e Wizard specialists (Alchemists, Dimensionalists, Geomancer, etc.) and having their own spell lists

Kits: I think that the with the mechanics of the current version, the implementation would have been much better. At least now, unlike with 3.0, the designers at WOTC are doing more with class variants.

Slower Leveling: Previous editions may have been to slow, but, imo, the current version is way to fast. Then again, I also consider levels 5-10 or 5-12 to be the "sweet spot" and don't like DND past that point. Yes, there is the option in the DMG to slow leveling. I just wish that slower leveling was default and faster leveling was the option.

Multiclassing: Compared to the current version, I liked that you earned experience in multiple classes simultaneously, but split experience points rather than the current leveling in one class and then switch to level in another class. The former made it seem that you were developing multiiple aspects at one time whereas the current method makes it seem like you focus entirely on one class at a time.

Facing: reintroduced in UA

Weapon Groups: reintroduced in UA

PO: Combat and Tactics Critical system
-rolling 18 or higher and having to hit by five or more
-the more detailed wound and lethal criticals version

 

[Korgoth]

I don't miss anything, because I've returned to the old stuff.

Indeed.

Speaking of, everybody should check out:
dragonsfoot.org
Great fora!

What with the availability of old school D&D in PDF and at used book stores, as well as Castles & Crusades in print and going strong, the "good ol' days" are available to everyone.

 

[Mythmere1]

Indeed.

Speaking of, everybody should check out:
dragonsfoot.org
Great fora!

What with the availability of old school D&D in PDF and at used book stores, as well as Castles & Crusades in print and going strong, the "good ol' days" are available to everyone.

New modules for 1e as well. Search for OSRIC on RPGnow or lulu.com.

 

[Transit]

The "Frequency" entry on the monster tables. I know that different campaign worlds have different rarities of monsters and can vary. It's still nice to have a baseline from which to vary.

I've got to second this. I liked the idea that some monsters were meant to be rarer than others. It made it seem like the monsters lived in a real ecological system.

And it looks like the MMV has even dropped the Organization entry ("Number Appearing" in the old days) and replaced it with descriptions of a few sample encounters. So now we don't know how often a monster shows up, or how many of it's friends it usually brings along. (I think Frequency and Number Appearing would be more useful than the HD/Size advancement that they still include.)

I think the old Treasure Type table was better at giving certain monsters "signature" types of treasure. Now it seems most monsters have "standard treasure per CR."

And I also recall having fun with the "Percent in Lair" entry. I'd let my players roll and they'd use a special pair of lucky percentage dice to see if there would be a nearby lair to loot.

Maybe it's just nostalgia, but in the old days it seemed like Frequency, Number Appearing, Percent in Lair and Treasure Type let me roll up interesting monster encounters in a matter of moments. I ran some of my greatest games where I had nothing planned in advance, and the whole game was just random encounters that happened while the PCs did a little Wilderness Travel to the next town.

I just don't have the same "flip open the monster manual and PLAY" feeling that I used to have. There are too many calculations and decisions to be made in 3.5 to ever run an encounter on-the-fly.

Gosh. I think I might have just talked myself into shelving D20 and starting an old school D&D campaign.