Old D&D? AD&D? OSRIC? Anyone?

[Inquisitor Tremayne]

The feat of which you speak is included in the Complete Scoundrel......

No one likes a rules-lawyer. To deflate their posturing before it begins I start any new campaign with the caveat that I am always right....even when I'm wrong and anything outside of the PHB and DMG is subject to my whims. I own pretty much every source book published to date and have read about 90% of them so I have at least a passing knowledge of all the rules and so I allow pretty much every rule with exceptions that muddle and befuddle the progression of the story and the players.

WotC knows that they can't satisfy everyone, but that hasn't stopped them from trying. With the number of classes, spells, and feats published there is something for everyone. Infinite diversity through infinite combinations as our Vulcan brothers and sisters would say.

I like rules lawyers.

Mostly because I am one and can use it to my advantage. The other reason why I play smart characters!

After all, we are at the very least bound somewhat to the rules in the PHB and the DMG, whats wrong with using those rules to your advantage?

[Tony Misfeldt]

At the beginning of this thread, I asked the following questions:



So far, the answers are as follows:

1. Yes
2. Apparently not.
3. The only clear answer I've heard is: "Because 3.x is BROKEN! BROKEN, I say!" Maybe also for the nostalgia value? I don't know.

Is this correct?

Looks right to me. I'm not saying that 3.X is a bad system. I'm just saying that in trying to improve an admittedly broken system, they ended up making one that's just as broken, if not more so.

[Drohem]

Ok, I skimmed this thread.

I don't play any earlier versions of D&D. My group currently plays 3.5 D&D and d20 Modern. Each GM has their own House Rules. I am one of two 'vanilla' GMs in the group.

I recently found Labyrinth Lords, OSRIC, and GORE. I have downloaded them and skimmned them. I doubt I can convince anyone in my group to return to the 'good old days.'

I would play them if given the opportunity.

The only reason would be for nostalgia, and trying to capture that certain *feel* of those days of yore.

It seems there is much controversy over these 'retro-clone' games. There is much discussion over the 'morality' and legality of these games.

As far as legality goes, they are within the laws as written.

Now, the issue of morality: I read the introductions by the authors. It's clear to me that they are paying homage to the forefathers of the RPG industry. They are clearly trying to re-kindle an interest in these older games, and it seems for nostaglia's sake and a desire to return to a 'simpler time' of roleplaying. I have no problem with these games.

[Olothfaern]

My number one seething hatred for any rule system is arbitrary (with respect to the rule framework) limitations
.

In Basic, it was why can't my Dwarf be a Thief; in AD&D it was I'm an Elf a member of a magical race and I'm stuck at what level of Magic? in 2nd ed, it was so how is it that me and the Warrior face the same challenge, but he benefits more from it?; in 3.x it favored class...

Every edition has it's problems; if they didn't you wouldn't need a DM, but the rules work better with every iteration.

No I don't play pre- 3.x D&D it would be like going from an air car to a 3 legged horse

I don't play retro rules sets (see above)

Their appeal is to people who had their golden age during another era, and would rather wallow in that than pay their SOTA costs.

[Farcaster]

Every edition has it's problems; if they didn't you wouldn't need a DM

*chuckle*

I wouldn't go quite that far.

[Tony Misfeldt]

Every edition has it's problems; if they didn't you wouldn't need a DM, but the rules work better with every iteration.



Their appeal is to people who had their golden age during another era, and would rather wallow in that than pay their SOTA costs.

I agree with the first half of this statement (except for the part about the DM). I mentioned in an earlier post that each edition had its benefits and hindrances (much like character kits in second edition). And as I stated earlier there were several changes made in 3rd Edition that needed to be made.

The second half of this statement I disagree with. People who play earlier editions of D&D aren't wallowing in their golden age of gaming. To paraphrase Giles in Season One of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, "we just don't go by the knee jerk opinion that just because something is new automatically makes it better." Yes, 2nd Edition had its faults. However, most of those faults were corrected through the optional rules in the books Skills & Powers, Combat & Tactics, and Spells & Magic. Which is why I choose to play 2nd Edition with those optional rules. The 2nd Edition DMG also has optional rules for allowing demihumans to level up past racial limitations, and numerous DMs have their own house rules for other things such as saving throws, and spell strength according to caster level, etc.

The source of my seething hatred of 3.X Edition is that for every positive change made for the new d20 system, they made an equally negative change, thus beaking what they were trying to fix. For example:

POSITIVE: They changed the old Non Weapon Proficiency system to the new Skills system, introducing Skill Points and Difficulty Checks.
NEGATIVE: They introduced Feats. Feats suck! They make characters too powerful too quick. It's also a unnecessarily complicates a system that they were trying to simplify.

POSITIVE: They simplified the combat system by eliminating THAC0 and turning the Armour Class system on its head.
NEGATIVE: They changed the descriptions and damage of many of the weapons. Some of the weapons didn't even survive the conversion into 3rd Edition, such as the broadsword and katana. That I don't like.

POSITIVE: The warrior classes are no longer the only ones who gain additional attacks as they move up in level.
NEGATIVE: The 2nd Edition system for multiple attacks was simpler.

POSITIVE: Divine spells now go all the way up to 9th level, while in 1st & 2nd Editions they only went up to 7th.
NEGATIVE: They eliminated Spheres Of Influence, thus eliminating the specialty priest from an optional choice of PC class. They tried compensating with the introduction of Prestige Classes and Cleric Domains, but those are a poor substitute for the lost classes.

POSITIVE: The (re)introduced the Barbarian, Monk, and Sorcerer as PC classes.
NEGATIVE: As I mentioned in my first post, they got the barbarian class all wrong.

POSITIVE: They introduced Challenge Ratings for monster XP values.
NEGATIVE: They made all classes level up at the same rate. In 1st & 2nd Edition, the different XP requirements to level up for all the different classes served the same purpose as CR in 3.X. It also makes for equality between PCs in combat situations. A 3rd level fighter and a 5th level thief in 2nd Ed have roughly the same THAC0, Hit Points, Saving Throws, etc. So when facing the same monsters (or each other) in combat, they'll be on roughly equal footing.

POSITIVE: They simplified Saving Throws, so that you only have three saves instead of five. Also, high stats can aide or hinder your saving throws. The number you have to roll against is also dependant on the level of the wizard/priest casting the spell, the age of the dragon, or the potency of the poison. This makes more logistic sense.
NEGATIVE: They got halflings wrong. Halfling are hobbits, plain and simple. Always have been, and in my mind always will be. Halflings are not kender. While true halflings who have met kender while visiting Krynn (or while the kender were visiting the halflings home world) have sort of adopted kender as a halfling subrace, they are not in the truest sense halflings. And I don't care what Wizards Of The Coast says to the contrary.

POSITIVE: They simplified Weapon Proficiencies, so you no longer have to learn each weapon individually.
NEGATIVE: They over simplified Weapon Proficiencies. While I can understand one being able to wield a scimitar just as well as a long sword, or a great sword just as well as a bastard sword, or a spear just as well as a javeline, there is a world of difference between wielding a short sword and a bastard sword, or a long sword and great sword. I think the group proficiency system introduced in The Complete Fighter's Handbook is a much more realistic system. And they should be skills, not feats (feats suck!).

POSITIVE: They allowed demihumans to have unlimited level advancement. I've always been on the line with this 2nd Ed rule. If a demihuman can go adventuring for centuries gaining XP, why does he have to stop advancing at X number of levels while humans, who can only adventure for a few decades, have unlimited advancement?
NEGATIVE: They also allowed demihumans to be any PC class. The answer to the above question was because if humans didn't have an advantage over demihumans, no one would want to play a human PC. That was the reason for limiting demihuman PC class choices as well. Without either rule, who's going to want to play a human PC?

[Olothfaern]

... so I'll summarize...

3rd ed has features you don't like

and?

examples:

Feats make characters too powerful too quick? Too powerful for whom? You? The challenges of their CR? The planet Earth?

Hobbits vs. Halflings? Flavor text...

Analogy:

DC current was good enough for me, I didn't need any power adaptors, and my risk of electrocution was much lower...

AC current is easier to distribute at lower cost making it more beneficial for a larger portion of the community; buy adaptors and stop playing with the wires...



Don't think I'm hatin' on you though

[Farcaster]

The source of my seething hatred of 3.X Edition is that for every positive change made for the new d20 system, they made an equally negative change, thus beaking what they were trying to fix.

I just don't get this sentiment. Why do you have a "seething hatred" for any RPG? It seems a bit extreme to me. But, I notice there there seems to be some people who polarize towards these extreme points of view and come to believe that their opinions are facts. I equally disagree with people who vehemently speak against 2nd edition and think anyone who plays it is obviously making a mistake, or as you put it, they have a "knee jerk opinion."

Going down your list of positives and negatives, there are several things you list as negative that I actually think are great additions to the game. Feats, prestige classes, and the elimination of class limits for demi-humans are perfect examples of things I like about 3rd edition. Does that make my opinion less valuable than yours? No, it just means you like 2nd edition better, and I like 3rd.

So, my friend, truly there is no reason for the seething hatred. Just play the game you prefer.

[Digital Arcanist]

Tony there are few things wrong with some of your points. The first being that WotC is behind the change in the halfling race. We've been through this fact in this very thread. I think your anger is misplaced and should be directed at the Tolkien estate. Second, humans do have some benefits over demi-human races, those being no multi-classing restrictions, extra skill points, and a bonus feat at creation. The third is that Dragon magazine put out an issue where the Class Acts article was all about clerics and they reintroduced the Spheres of Influence. The final problem is that the entire point of 3.5 edition was balance among the classes, especially during combat. There is no need to level up different classes at different rates to even the field. At level 5 my rogue is just as effective as any level 5 fighter. Part of that is owed to feats.

Olothfaern there are also some problems in your post. The decision to move to a new edition from an old isn't always about money. Sometimes the new edition doesn't offer the same experience as the old and so gamers choose to stick with the old. I bought the new World of Darkness books and decided that White Wolf went in a direction I didn't like so I play OWoD still. Cost of books had nothing to do with it. Books can be downloaded for free now with the same ease as an MP3 (with the same illegality) but some gamers still stick to the old editions of their games.

Now, the original point of the thread was to poll members about their draw to older editions to games if any. There is no need for members to criticize others about their choice of edition or to pick apart game systems.

[Tony Misfeldt]

I just don't get this sentiment. Why do you have a "seething hatred" for any RPG? It seems a bit extreme to me.

I was actually quoting Olothfaern's remark of having a "seething hatred" of earlier editions of D&D.

Going down your list of positives and negatives, there are several things you list as negative that I actually think are great additions to the game. Feats, prestige classes, and the elimination of class limits for demi-humans are perfect examples of things I like about 3rd edition.

Again you misread or misunderstood my point. I never said that prestige classes were a negative addition to the game. I said they were a poor substitute for the Specialty Priest class. I actually like the idea of prestige classes, but why did they have to eliminate Specialty Priests? As for demihuman class limitations, when there are infinate advantages to playing demihumans and none for playing humans, who would ever want to play a human? And I still think feats suck.

So, my friend, truly there is no reason for the seething hatred. Just play the game you prefer.

As there is no actual "seething hatred" (I was just poking fun at Olothfaern), I've always played the game I prefer and will continue to do so no matter how many people try to sell me on the "superiority" of the new system.

[Tony Misfeldt]

Tony there are few things wrong with some of your points. The first being that WotC is behind the change in the halfling race. We've been through this fact in this very thread. I think your anger is misplaced and should be directed at the Tolkien estate. Second, humans do have some benefits over demi-human races, those being no multi-classing restrictions, extra skill points, and a bonus feat at creation. The third is that Dragon magazine put out an issue where the Class Acts article was all about clerics and they reintroduced the Spheres of Influence. The final problem is that the entire point of 3.5 edition was balance among the classes, especially during combat. There is no need to level up different classes at different rates to even the field. At level 5 my rogue is just as effective as any level 3 fighter. Part of that is owed to feats.

With halflings, if the Tolkien estate was getting their panties in a bunch about the use of halflings in D&D then why not change the name to something completely different, which niether looks nor sounds anything like hobbit or halfling, and keep the description the same? You get the same effect but without such a huge change in race descriptions (I believe in the 3rd Ed Players Handbook it says the halflings refer to themselves as hynn or something like that). That's what they did with ents, changing them to treants, so why not halflings?

I've never read the Dragon Magazine article on reintroducing Spheres Of Influence for priest spells, but then I haven't bought a copy of Dragon Magazine since the change over.

The human benefits over demihumans are kind of pathetic in 3rd Ed, especially if you don't use feats (I still say they suck). The ability to multiclass is a nice change, but the bonus skill points are negligable.

Without feats like Cleav, Great Cleav, Uber Cleav, Kill Seven Giants In One Blow Cleav, and whatever other crap they came up with, rogues need a little edge over warriors. Leveling up quicker gives them this. Leveling wizards up slower allows DMs to hold off on throwing the players against more powerful monsters too soon by allowing the warriors, rogues, and priests to get to higher levels before the wizard can start unleashing fireballs and lightning bolts right left and centre.

Of course, this is all just my own opinion.

[Olothfaern]

For Tony:

My seething hatred isn't for earlier editions of D&D.

Let's quote myself...

"My number one seething hatred for any rule system is arbitrary (with respect to the rule framework) limitations."



For Digital Arcanist:

When I said pay your SOTA costs, I wasn't actually referring to money, I was equating it to Shadowrun's optional rules for cyberware...

[Maelstrom]

About 3.5 rouges, they do have quite an effective sneak attack, usuable any time they are flanking, as opposed to the one shot 2nd edition backstabs. Add to that skills that give them more mobility than fighters
(jump, balance, tumble) and they are much better at getting positional tactical advantage. Finally, I'd take a high level rouge with a good wand and high Use Magic Item skill over a bulked up fighter.

[Tony Misfeldt]

For Tony:

My seething hatred isn't for earlier editions of D&D.

Let's quote myself...

"My number one seething hatred for any rule system is arbitrary (with respect to the rule framework) limitations."

Okay, so Farcaster isn't the only one who misreads or misinterprets posts. I'm not perfect, I accept that (although, being Canadian, I'm so damn close it's scary).

[Tony Misfeldt]

About 3.5 rogues, they do have quite an effective sneak attack, usuable any time they are flanking, as opposed to the one shot 2nd edition backstabs. Add to that skills that give them more mobility than fighters
(jump, balance, tumble) and they are much better at getting positional tactical advantage. Finally, I'd take a high level rogue with a good wand and high Use Magic Item skill over a bulked up fighter.

I always found the 2nd Ed rule for rogue backstabs to be open to interpretation. The necessary eliment in a backstab is surprise. If an enemy is distracted with another PC or NPC during your sneak attack then you get the bonus to hit & damage. If you dive between the giants legs, tumble to your feet, then quickly drive your shortsword into his kidney before he gets a chance to turn around, you don't (that's still a cool move though, and you'd probably get extra XP just for trying it). At least, that's how I always run the Backstab rule when I DM 2nd ED.