Best of All Worlds

[Engar]

I am a bit of a 4e cynic. I am also a bit disenchanted with 3.x. I loved 2e, but I realize much of my enchantment may be nastalgic use of my rose colored glasses. So my question for all you fellow DnD long-timers (or any having played multiple editions) is...

What do you consider the "best elements" of your favorite DnD edition?

Please think of a specific aspect and why it merits your esteem.

For example, one of my favorite aspects of 2e were all the kits. They had very little mechanical effect and huge developmental impact for character backgrounds. 2e embraced character concept and story development above all else and for that it remains my favorite game.

[bltzkrg242]

3.5 is unparalleled for customization. You didn't need a kit.. you could focus on whatever character idea you might come up with and focus with Prestige classes as you see fit.

I wasn't pleased with the stock swashbuckler so I used the monk class with a different "skin" and had a fine finesse combatant that did more damage with his rapier at higher levels and couldn't fight bare handed at all.
The classes and prestige classes just gave you mechanics.. you didn't have to use the fluff.

[Thoth-Amon]

I've played all the editions, having played since the '70's. My favorite is 1E. Of course, i am willing to admit that a subconscious nostalgia bias may be a part of it.

Thoth-Amon

[tesral]

There is always something to say for the early game, what ever your early game was. You didn't know what stuff was, everything hit the awe and wonder button.

Trying to recapture that feeling is bittersweet indeed. A time fuzzy in my mind with good friends, good times.

I'm going to start humming tunes from The Brother's Four here in a minute if I keep it up.

Deep in December, it's nice to remember,
Although you know the snow will follow.
Deep in December, it's nice to remember,
Without a hurt the heart is hollow.
Deep in December, it's nice to remember,
The fire of September that made us mellow.
Deep in December, our hearts should remember
And follow.

[Thoth-Amon]

There is always something to say for the early game, what ever your early game was. You didn't know what stuff was, everything hit the awe and wonder button.

Trying to recapture that feeling is bittersweet indeed. A time fuzzy in my mind with good friends, good times.

I'm going to start humming tunes from The Brother's Four here in a minute if I keep it up.

Deep in December, it's nice to remember,
Although you know the snow will follow.
Deep in December, it's nice to remember,
Without a hurt the heart is hollow.
Deep in December, it's nice to remember,
The fire of September that made us mellow.
Deep in December, our hearts should remember
And follow.
"Bittersweet" would be a good description of it, tesral. I do miss the good ole days.

Thoth-Amon

[Engar]

I miss them too, please add a specific thing you miss most about those games. These boards have some of the best GMs and players out there and I fully intend to steal from each of you! I am also reviewing the campaign resources section, but this is more of a compilation cliff note.

[tesral]

I miss them too, please add a specific thing you miss most about those games. These boards have some of the best GMs and players out there and I fully intend to steal from each of you! I am also reviewing the campaign resources section, but this is more of a compilation cliff note.

The things are remember the most fondly are the intangibles. Frankly, the game sucked. Mechanically the game we have today (3e not Forry) is a better game.

The old days were good for the fun and the friends. The wonder of it all. Living with two good friends, out on our own at last, playing like every night. No one to complain if we were up to all hours. Even the dragging into work tired the next day was part of it. A house full of people on the weekends. Money was easy, gas was cheap and we went everywhere, took in every Con. The glory days if you will.

[ronpyatt]

Since this thread is about what we like about our favorite D&D edition, I'd have to say that I enjoy how 4e emphasizes story focus around the characters. Great detail and flavor text in the core rules bring this to life.
The mechanics are simple and leave lots of room for the "story now" aspect of roleplay I enjoy. This simplicity allows more flavor to be added without adding to the complexity; Such as introducing shadow or psi keywords to expand your game world. And the One table to rule them all for classes.

4e encourages play for mid to high-magic fantasy with simple techniques to give it that magical feeling. It also points out the minor tweaks that can change the game so that I'll be able to jump into a no-magic or low-magic D&D fantasy setting with little difficulty.

Character class and race design has a streamlined feel that make it easy to create new classes by changing simple aspects of current classes - such as changing a class's key ability from Con to Int based - supplying a resource for an endless number of other classes.

Together with the mechanics, examples, and flavor text this expands the range of playability, and gives D&D a real fantasy story feel, where high action and amazing adventures are just a matter of course.

[Thoth-Amon]

The things are remember the most fondly are the intangibles. Frankly, the game sucked. Mechanically the game we have today (3e not Forry) is a better game.

The old days were good for the fun and the friends. The wonder of it all. Living with two good friends, out on our own at last, playing like every night. No one to complain if we were up to all hours. Even the dragging into work tired the next day was part of it. A house full of people on the weekends. Money was easy, gas was cheap and we went everywhere, took in every Con. The glory days if you will.
Now that's the way to live.

Thoth-Amon

[Engar]

I love the ritual concept introduced by 4e. I would tweek it, but I like the separation between daily spells designed for use in encounters and in depth, complex rituals which require quiet meditation and focus.

I would also like to toss in a welcome to anyone using 3rd party adds or systems as long as it pertains to DnD (Pathfinder for example or Arcana Unearthed, etc). I really want to focus on what aspects really worked and why.

[DMMike]

Best elements of 3.X:

OGL. How often do artists these days say, "here. Take my idea and run with it. Water it. Put it out in the glow of the beholder's anti-magic ray. See what blossoms."

Customization. Multiclassing, cross class skills, feats, domains, less racial and alignment limits. Still, people probably forget the magic rule: the DM supercedes the rulebook.


Accessories. Okay, way too many. But if you want new ideas, and don't mind dropping some cash - look at the options! Books for races, environments, classes, creature types, and even campaign styles! Yup, I bought some. If Wizards were still TSR, I'd feel bad about them producing great products that have such longevity. But especially with 4e - I'm sure they'll survive in the ways that only corporations can.

[fmitchell]

OGL. How often do artists these days say, "here. Take my idea and run with it. Water it. Put it out in the glow of the beholder's anti-magic ray. See what blossoms."

That was amazing (while it lasted). Forget house-ruling; somebody could change the rules dramatically, and publish their results to paying customers. True20, Iron Heroes, Mutants and Masterminds, Spycraft, Sidewinder, and Mongoose's OGL products, among others, extended the d20 system to other genres and subgenres, streamlined mechanics, and added new mechanics for skills, combat and magic.

Heck, even Mongoose's RuneQuest uses some d20 Modern mechanics adapted to a percentile system. Fudge and FATE 3/Spirit of the Century snarfed just the Open Gaming License itself for their products.

A few of those experiments fed directly or indirectly back into 4th Edition; others took on a life of their own

[Webhead]

One of my favorite things about Basic D&D was the simplicity of character attributes. On your character sheet you had: 6 attributes, 5 saving throws, hit points, armor class and thaco. That's it. Most everything else was interpretive and fell back to one of these elements as judged by the DM. Wanna wrestle a bugbear to the ground? Make a Strength check. Wanna climb a rope? Make a Dex check. Wanna leap down from the rafters above the beholder and skewer him with your sword? Make a Dex check...if you succeed you get a +2 to hit...if you fail, you twist your ankle and get a -2 to hit. The players gave a situation and the DM had fun trying to figure out how to handle it while keeping the game moving.

It's odd that I was so enamored with this play style as I tend to be a very big proponent of heavily "skill-based" games (coming from Star Wars D6, where everything was about your skills). Perhaps this has to do with how "abstract" the rest of the mechanic of D&D were.

I also liked "Kits" from 2e a great deal. They were a convenient channel for different character concepts without introducing handfuls of new rules for them.

I liked the idea of feats as a way to make characters more unique, they just became too potent, complex and numerous (entire character concepts built around a combination of feats...I've seen it done).

I like the idea of "minion" characters in 4e. It makes it feasible within D&D to have large groups of enemies attacking the group at once and still be threatening.

I like 3e's approach to class/race combinations. Any race can join any class and its up to the player to add the flavor. But I very much disliked the "favored-multiclass" rules and thought they should have been removed entirely. It does far more harm than good, penalizing unique multi-class concepts.

I like 4e's removal of "alignment" from any intrinsic game mechanics. No more spells that target alignments, no more alignment-based restrictions. Your character is more complex than a 9-way axiom.

One thing I've always felt that D&D needed was some form of Hero/Force/Willpower/Drama Point mechanic to allow players to influence die rolls at crucial times.

[tesral]

One thing I've always felt that D&D needed was some form of Hero/Force/Willpower/Drama Point mechanic to allow players to influence die rolls at crucial times.

Add away.

[Engar]

I think action points and a few other options were introduced in 2e player's option. Been awhile, but that set had a lot of good stuff hidden amongst large piles of refuse. But one man's garbage...

[bltzkrg242]

Action points are in 3.5 if you use the option from Unearthed arcana

[Webhead]

Add away.

I have at times in the past. I was just adding the notation for reference purposes for those looking to homebrew their own D&D game drawing from ideas across all D&D editions and other RPGs. D&D can be well serviced by looking outside of itself.

[Dimthar]

I guess my favorite from previous editions were the "Skills", the more the merrier.

Truth is (as discussed in "Literacy in Fantasy Worlds", the fact of the PCs not trained in certain skills helped me put extra challenges that helped Role-playing. Having Illiterate PCs that don't know how to swim creates opportunities for innovation and ingenuity from their part. Keeps Munchkins at bay too :D

One thing I've always felt that D&D needed was some form of Hero/Force/Willpower/Drama Point mechanic to allow players to influence die rolls at crucial times.

We called it: Hero Point. The two more memorable times was our ranger throwing a javeling with a rope to a far away tree that allowed us to escape from a tower. the other was a rogue picking up a Tower Shield and give cover to a child right before the Dragon breathe fire on them, the Hero Point gave them 0 Damage on save, half damage on fail, luckily the Rogue did make the save. One point per adventure (not session).

We were all for Cinematic Effects.

[Ramzei]

What I liked about 2e was the amount of material that was put out for it. Yeah the game mechanics had issues, but that is the GMs job to work with them not for them. The great thing about the materials was that it gave a little push or direction when the GM didn't have time to put into it. The fact that it was all put out by TSR was also nice.

[Oedipussy Rex]

20-point kicker, penetration damage, critical hit and fumble tables, scaled Cure spells, and a boatload of Fireball spells.

[Talmek]

3.5 is unparalleled for customization...

I concur. 3.5e offered more in the way of "making my PC mine" than any other edition I've looked into. (Granted, I've only really played 3e and 3.5e but I've read multiple editions.)

[Webhead]

I concur. 3.5e offered more in the way of "making my PC mine" than any other edition I've looked into. (Granted, I've only really played 3e and 3.5e but I've read multiple editions.

That was the major selling point for 3e...customization. Compared to previous editions as written by-the-corebook, 3e let you make more varied and meaningful rules choices about your character. If there were a way to keep the open-endedness of character options while making the game less overly-complex, that would be something to see (and mayhaps the intention of this thread?...)

[Valdar]

My favorite aspect of 3e was that it could be played as written. So much of 2e and earlier was up to interpretation, so you couldn't really say you were playing the exact same game as another group. The game often ground to a halt when some special rules call needed to be made, when the players disagreed with the DM on something. The 3e rules were definitely clunky, but you could at least say they were there when you needed them.

[nijineko]

volumetric fireballs. one of my favorite aspects of the game. all that power... but did you dare use it? better aim carefully! i think the old fireball taught me more about math than school did, sometimes. after all, your character's life might depend on it! plus, i've always been fond of "urban renewal" effects. great for rearranging the dungeon. =D

[agoraderek]

volumetric fireballs. one of my favorite aspects of the game. all that power... but did you dare use it? better aim carefully! i think the old fireball taught me more about math than school did, sometimes. after all, your character's life might depend on it! plus, i've always been fond of "urban renewal" effects. great for rearranging the dungeon. =D

that's one thing i did when i converted to 3e, i didn't change ANYTHING about the original spells (well, except reworded the castin gtimes to fit the new paradigm, "x segments" spells became standard actions, "1 round" spells, full actions, etc...). volume fireballs and bouncy lightning bolts, kept the party on their toes (and mad at the wizard, usually, as it should be!)

[nijineko]

i kept them as "antique" or "ancient" versions that can be found as treasure. some magic items as well. the party gets excited when i announce an "antique" magic item of xyz, cause they know it uses some fun rules. everyone loves to find the "ancient scroll of fireballs", for example. =D

[agoraderek]

i kept them as "antique" or "ancient" versions that can be found as treasure. some magic items as well. the party gets excited when i announce an "antique" magic item of xyz, cause they know it uses some fun rules. everyone loves to find the "ancient scroll of fireballs", for example. =D

that is a VERY cool idea. i might have to borrow it when i convert over to pathfinder (should get the beta soft cover next week)

[Engar]

i kept them as "antique" or "ancient" versions that can be found as treasure. some magic items as well. the party gets excited when i announce an "antique" magic item of xyz, cause they know it uses some fun rules. everyone loves to find the "ancient scroll of fireballs", for example. =D

*stolen*

[Thoth-Amon]

When playing the older versions, as well as the later versions, i buff up the arrow damage, arrow crit range, and range for auto full damage. This tends to make players not act so immortal. Also, when playing, for example, 1st edition, i allow the spell users more spells, as well as some variations, kinda like 4.0 is doing. Of course, my way is simpler and more ingenious.

Thoth-Amon

[tesral]

that's one thing i did when i converted to 3e, i didn't change ANYTHING about the original spells (well, except reworded the castin gtimes to fit the new paradigm, "x segments" spells became standard actions, "1 round" spells, full actions, etc...). volume fireballs and bouncy lightning bolts, kept the party on their toes (and mad at the wizard, usually, as it should be!)

Same path I'm taking. Changing all the spell names was one of those unnecessay changes in 3e. It didn't improve the game.

Of course I editied the spells into shape ten years ago, they only need a light touch up now.

[Thoth-Amon]

Same path I'm taking. Changing all the spell names was one of those unnecessay changes in 3e. It didn't improve the game.

Of course I editied the spells into shape ten years ago, they only need a light touch up now.
Agreed. Besides, i like some of the classic names and still refer to them by their originally known names.

Thoth-Amon

[bltzkrg242]

Why on earth did they need to rename these anyways.

Tho seriously, there are WAY too many spells in 3.5 and other editions. They could have a couple of effects and the player gets to choose the effect.

Blast, ray, move, defend, detect, Hide, etc.. then just add in a couple of variables and viola. done.

[Engar]

Why on earth did they need to rename these anyways.

Not a clue. It drove me nuts when first changing to 3.5 because it made the index useless.

Tho seriously, there are WAY too many spells in 3.5 and other editions. They could have a couple of effects and the player gets to choose the effect.

Blast, ray, move, defend, detect, Hide, etc.. then just add in a couple of variables and viola. done.

I like that idea. I am not sure on the practical application, but if you could asign values to different components it might be possible to more easily make unique, yet balanced spells. I only played Shadowrun a couple times a long time ago (2e maybe?); did it have a modular system like that? I have always sought ways to encourage more individual flare for spell casters without imbalancing things.

[tesral]

Why on earth did they need to rename these anyways.

Tho seriously, there are WAY too many spells in 3.5 and other editions. They could have a couple of effects and the player gets to choose the effect.

Blast, ray, move, defend, detect, Hide, etc.. then just add in a couple of variables and viola. done.

There is something to be said for that. Strip the pretty off, look at what effects you have, arrange them put the pretty back. That is what Hero and GURPS do. You have the game effect then the special effect.

As to the number of spells I have a simple rule. Core. I will look at other spells and your character can research them if you desire. But I'm not turning the whole thing loose on the game without examining them.

Advantage to the character that has it because no one else will for a good long time. Eventually I put that new spell in the core and anyone will get access to it, but you have exclusive access for at least one character cycle.

[nijineko]

Why on earth did they need to rename these anyways.


actually, because they had to follow thier own rules with the SRD and OGL. the names were tied to the original playtesters and creators characters, and are thus not covered by the OGL. so they had to strip all the proprietary names that weren't allowed by the OGL out of the SRD. and then they pretty much kept to that with the rest of the material from then on.

that'll answer why as to some of the name changes. perhaps not all. ^^

[Webhead]

...Tho seriously, there are WAY too many spells in 3.5 and other editions. They could have a couple of effects and the player gets to choose the effect.

Blast, ray, move, defend, detect, Hide, etc.. then just add in a couple of variables and viola. done.

That's essentially what Mutants & Masterminds does and why I am so fond of it. Like HERO or GURPS, it is an "effects-based" system. Powers are defined by their core "effects" and major functions and the rest is player-created flavor. You want your character to chuck fireballs? Take the "Blast" power. Wanna shoot heat-seeking, depleted uranium penguins from your nostrils? Take the "Blast" power.

M&M has a heaping of modifiers to core powers for customizability (so that you really can make your penguins heat-seeking), but there's no "spell list". You decide what you want the spell to do and you build it, then you slap on your own coat of paint to make it unique and...tada!

[Thoth-Amon]

"Core" spells are accessible to all. "Non-Core" spellls are the spells one can find while adventuring or develop through trial and error. This way always worked out quite well in my campaigns.

Besides, it makes things interesting when both sides have their own unique spells to throw at the other. Always fun.

Thoth-Amon

[Valdar]

Spells that used to be called "cure x" had to get changed to make way for the Cleric ability to spontaneously cast any spell that started with "cure" when they should have said that you can just spontaneously cast the HP-only curing spells.

"Remove Disease" went back to being "Cure Disease" in 4e after the spontaneous casting rule was no longer needed.

[DMMike]

re: Webhead

Let's not forget the DM overrule. If a sorceror really wants to cast "exploding Slimer" instead of fireball, why can't you change the energy type to force and describe the effects as a billowing explosion of ectoplasm?

[Webhead]

re: Webhead

Let's not forget the DM overrule. If a sorceror really wants to cast "exploding Slimer" instead of fireball, why can't you change the energy type to force and describe the effects as a billowing explosion of ectoplasm?

Oh, absolutely. I was well known for flexing my "GM" muscles in that regard for my games. Just because the rules for Magic Missile are all the same doesn't mean that the spell has to look identical for each caster. One my fire burning arrows, one might be golden leaves riding a phantom gust of wind, one might be exploding fireflies, etc.

I was just saying for those who like to have rules for customizable, do-it-yourself spells, M&M is a nice system. It is heavy on options while keeping medium complexity.

In fact, that's the strength of M&M. Two character can have the exact same power and just describe it differently. One man's Blast power might be heat rays that shoot from his eyes while another's might be ghostly, telekinetic fists that pummel his enemies. Description, description, description...:)