Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Shaman" data-source="post: 2896095" data-attributes="member: 26473">This is an interesting observation.I never played 2e, so my comments come from my experience with 1e AD&D. Many of the so-called "tactical" rules of 3e are extensions of the combat rules in 1e that were apparently overlooked or otherwise never used by many gamers. The AD&D rules reflected an old-school minis wargamer sensibility, where the action in the RAW wasn't tightly confined to a grid (as in 3.5) and didn't further abstract elements like facing, shield-side attacks, and so on. As a tape measure-packing, protractor-wielding grognard, I can definitely appreciate the approach to tactics presented in the 1e AD&D rules over those of 3.5.There are certainly advantages to be gained in combat using both rules systems: where 3e has its attacks of opportunity, flanking, and sneak attack, 1e has free attacks on a disengaging opponent, flank and rear attacks, and backstab. Mastery of the system certainly yields bonuses in both cases. This could be an argument for "subtactical" combat going back to the first edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.So why is it after playing both games, I feel like there are fewer constraints on my tactical choices using 1e AD&D?!?I think part of it may be the feat system. While feats don't automatically preclude a character from trying some tactical move or action in 3e, the penalties for attempting an action without the appropriate feat can be daunting. For example, the penalties for fighting with two weapons in 1e AD&D were less severe than they are in 3e D&D: -2/-4 in 1e, compared to -4/-8 without the Two-Weapon Fighting feat in 3e, assuming light off-hand weapons for each - investing in the appropriate feat is a hit on a 3e rogue, compared to his dual-dagger wielding 1e thief counterpart.I think the other part may be the increased codification of the rules in 3e - where so much was left to the game master's good judgement (or, to be fair, bad judgement at times) in AD&D, now there's a rule for (just about) everything, and for (just about) everything a rule. I agree, RFisher, that this is contributes to the subtactical feel that you described, a tendency to play the rules more carefully to avoid those heinous penalties or discarding actions that are described in terms of class abilities or feats that the character doesn't possess.It doesn't have to be this way with 3e - it certainly wasn't in my three-point-oh game - but I suspect that it may be, more often than not, the way gamers approach the current edition.</blockquote>

Verification