Maybe AD&D 1/2 Got it Right?

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
Okay, Im going to say it, I am not too fond of 4th edition, and Im aware of some of the issues that arise from high level play in 3rd.  But it  has to be said, that while 3rd does bare some resembalence to its forebears, 4th does not.  Its quick to besure, every one feels involved. But to me 4th plays more like a version of Exalted with levels, and little chance of it reaching the startspheres of hedonism and sheare wackiness that a essence 4+ Exalted game can get to.  
I love exalted, but Exalted is not D&D.
My first exposure to the game was with my Super Nintendo back in 93 when I got a copy of Eye of the Beholder released by Capcom.   It was my first CRPG, for consoles.    I will admit I still fear the spiders on the third floor.  My first Table Top was WEG D6 Starwars.  I have fond memories of the game.  I wanted 2nd Edition for a long time, but no parents thought it was Evil, (It took trickery on my part to get a deck of magic cards) It was the 90s and I lived in the south, so Satanic Fears still were abound.  So Third Edition came, and I got my first taste. Ebberron became my second favorite setting next to Dragonlance (I love kender, and I devoured any book I could grab).  I tried to like 4th I did, its just, it didnt do it for me, I like DnD to provide a certain je ne sais quoi.  I have no problem hopping games.  But I got most of my DnD experiences from computer games (Both Balders Gates, Eye of the Beholder, Planescape Torment, and Icewind Dale), and 3rd edition. So when my uncle died, I inherited his 1e AD&D books, and I owned the Hackmaster 4e PHB, GMG, and the HoBs 1-8 (prior to his passing).  
Heres the shocker, most of the really wierd and "Silly" monsters in Hackmaster are from the older D&D games. 
So I read them, I learned to play, I wrote adventures for them in anticipation for running a game for my cousin and friends using my reprints (I gave the books back to my cousin, cause they were his dad's) as sort of a send off for my uncle and his father, and new memories.  But I have learned a few things.

 What most people remember about 2nd edition being awful, was the amount of crap put out by TSR druing the last 11 years of its existance.  But from 1975 to about 1988 D&D was AD&D as created by Gary Gygax, and people didn't have too much trouble with it. Yes the bard class was weird and the psionics were not the easiest thing to get your head around.  But most of the blame has been laid on Loraine Williams (not a inaccurate accusation either.)  So lets be honest, 3rd and 4th are both attempts at reinventing the wheel.  They turned out to be two different games, with different feel.  And by tossing the baby out with the bath water and naming the next one Frank to make it seem like it never left is silly.
Instead we have highly devided fanbase that seems cant stand the thought being in the same room as the other.
So here it is, Every Edition sucks. Every edition is the best thing. So how do we solve this quandry.

4th edition had some decent ideas,  I liked essentials, I thought it was a great idea, too bad it was dropped, infact best idea ever was the digest sized books and low cost, and making fighters (I like this class) not the same as wizards.

1st and 2nd got combat right from a time scale.  Breaking down a round of combat into segments really was the balanceing factor for spell casters.  It also implied that the adventure stage of the game was just that, a stage of development of your character as he grew into a world changeing figure, due to name level, strong holds, and quite possiblely the coolest feature henchmen ,aka yo' posse, NPCs and hirelings.

3rd was a step towards modern game design with easy to understand mechanics, and my favorite campaign setting.  

What we need to do, is just agree that we need our version to be supported.  So rather than leave our segment in the rain why not support each version and clean them up with in thier frame work.

3rd edition is getting it through the release of pathfinder due to the OGL and SRD, so that cat is well out of the bag and never going back in.

So why am I saying this, well WotC already does this in a way, via their empire of Cards.  Wizards supports Pokemon, Magic, Yu-gi-Oh, and Kaijudo.  Why not the same for the different versions of D&D?  I like AD&D, as I have gotten older and read it, and understand it, it meshes better with my style of gming, and I would like my version supported like yours. 
As a point of clarification, Wizards of the Coast no longer produces Pokemon products and has never had any association with the Yu-Gi-Oh brand.

All around helpful simian

All versions of D&D are currently supported...
just not necessarily by WotC.

OD&D - play Swords & Wizardry
Basic - play OSRIC
AD&D 1E - play Labyrinth Lord
AD&D 2E - play Myth & Magic
D&D 3E - play Pathfinder
D&D 4E - play 4E
D&D 5E - it's coming...

It's pretty darn close anyway.
1st and 2nd got combat right from a time scale.  Breaking down a round of combat into segments really was the balanceing factor for spell casters.  



Well, that and different classes advancing on their own xp charts....  It took longer for the Magic Users to gain the power that everyone likes to complain about nowdays.

Another balancing factor with spellcasters?  One that's in 1e, 2e, 3x, & PF?  And one that {nearly} everyone intentionally glosses over?
Material spell componants.  Anything from bits of spiderweb up to rediculous cost gems....
I HATE that people ignore this.  All it is is Ammo.
Consider: You'd think it odd if the archer players went around shooting infinite arrows wouldn't you?  You'll make jokes/comments about "Hollywood six-shooters" & invisible pack mules laden with more wood than they could carry.  Heck, you might even cry foul!
And if you're the archer player?  You'll go to some effort to get things like ever-full quivers, bows that shoot lightning, or bags of holding where you store many many quivers, etc.  Right?
So - unless they've taken the "Eschew componants" feat (and I've seen very few that ever do) - why do you all let your spell casters get away with not using material components???
(BTW, I'm not a fan of that feat either)  
All versions of D&D are currently supported...
just not necessarily by WotC.

OD&D - play Swords & Wizardry
Basic - play OSRIC
AD&D 1E - play Labyrinth Lord
AD&D 2E - play Myth & Magic
D&D 3E - play Pathfinder
D&D 4E - play 4E
D&D 5E - it's coming...

It's pretty darn close anyway.



For that one?  You could just play AD&D 1e.  The 3 core books are back on the shelves thanks to WoTC you know.
1st and 2nd got combat right from a time scale.  Breaking down a round of combat into segments really was the balanceing factor for spell casters.  



Well, that and different classes advancing on their own xp charts....  It took longer for the Magic Users to gain the power that everyone likes to complain about nowdays.

Another balancing factor with spellcasters?  One that's in 1e, 2e, 3x, & PF?  And one that {nearly} everyone intentionally glosses over?
Material spell componants.  Anything from bits of spiderweb up to rediculous cost gems....
I HATE that people ignore this.  All it is is Ammo.
Consider: You'd think it odd if the archer players went around shooting infinite arrows wouldn't you?  You'll make jokes/comments about "Hollywood six-shooters" & invisible pack mules laden with more wood than they could carry.  Heck, you might even cry foul!
And if you're the archer player?  You'll go to some effort to get things like ever-full quivers, bows that shoot lightning, or bags of holding where you store many many quivers, etc.  Right?
So - unless they've taken the "Eschew componants" feat (and I've seen very few that ever do) - why do you all let your spell casters get away with not using material components???
(BTW, I'm not a fan of that feat either)  



For me, it just comes down to whether or not something contributes to fun or is tedious with little payback. I find tracking spell components to be the latter, especially considering how often wizards are supposed to be casting spells. Having them keep a long list of components -- how many strands of spider silk they happen to be carrying, etc. -- seems like it is far to one end of the effort/reward scale. It might make sense for powerful spells, or spells that are going to be cast as rituals, thus extending their power or duration, though.

1st and 2nd got combat right from a time scale.  Breaking down a round of combat into segments really was the balanceing factor for spell casters.  



Well, that and different classes advancing on their own xp charts....  It took longer for the Magic Users to gain the power that everyone likes to complain about nowdays.

Another balancing factor with spellcasters?  One that's in 1e, 2e, 3x, & PF?  And one that {nearly} everyone intentionally glosses over?
Material spell componants.  Anything from bits of spiderweb up to rediculous cost gems....
I HATE that people ignore this.  All it is is Ammo.
Consider: You'd think it odd if the archer players went around shooting infinite arrows wouldn't you?  You'll make jokes/comments about "Hollywood six-shooters" & invisible pack mules laden with more wood than they could carry.  Heck, you might even cry foul!
And if you're the archer player?  You'll go to some effort to get things like ever-full quivers, bows that shoot lightning, or bags of holding where you store many many quivers, etc.  Right?
So - unless they've taken the "Eschew componants" feat (and I've seen very few that ever do) - why do you all let your spell casters get away with not using material components???
(BTW, I'm not a fan of that feat either)  



In 3.5, a spell component pouch was dirt cheap and was expected to have any cheap material components in it, no tracking required. So you only have to worry about components that are expensive (example: The 1000gp mirror for a focus for Divination, 5000gp in diamonds for resurrection, etc).

Given that the vast majority of spells that have a component are cheap as heck, it made spell components in large part a non-factor. Most of the spells that did have expensive components were things that the whole group would want and make use of (see again, divination and resurrection), and the casters could generally get the whole party to chip in on them (I mean really, are you going to tell the Cleric he has to be the one coughing up 5000gp because the Fighter got killed for the 3rd time this week?). Add to that the 3.5 wealth rules actually assume you will be getting 10% more than you should each level, and expects that extra to be spent on consumables, then even if you do track it, you're pretty much covered. 

Material components are not a meaningful restriction, even when followed to the letter. 

Material spell componants.  Anything from bits of spiderweb up to rediculous cost gems....
I HATE that people ignore this.  All it is is Ammo.
Consider: You'd think it odd if the archer players went around shooting infinite arrows wouldn't you?  You'll make jokes/comments about "Hollywood six-shooters" & invisible pack mules laden with more wood than they could carry.  Heck, you might even cry foul!



Well no, I look at it more like the gun itself. The spell slots themselves are the ammo, but the component pouch is the gun that you need to fire the bullets.

The components play the part of allowing wizards to be captured, because with the archer you can tie him up and take away his bow, with a mage, you need something else similar you can take away to weaken him. That could just be a wand instead of a bag of bat guano, but it needs to be something.

Otherwise the problem is that you can never capture PCs because wizards become too dangerous to take alive, so you just slit their throats and be done with it.

1E would be a great system if the occurences of "always" and "never", alignments, Druicide and variants, and random arbitrary fluff-chanics such as three ranger limit, racial level limits, paralell multiclass systems, and ability score minimums were stripped out.

2E's Players Option should have been continued into a 2.5E.
Oh no no my friend I know Exalted, and 4E is about as far as you can get from Exalted while still being in the RPG genre, Exalted was built as the anti DnD so any DnD by maintaining it's loose bag of tropes,"you meet in a tavern" "let's raid a tomb" "of  course I'll kill these wolves/orcs/minotaurs for you my lord", is comfortably away from Exalted.

Now add to this the fact that 4E actually balances the PC if they are of different Power Sources and doesn't come out and say that the peaseants should bow to and worship a lvl 1 PC, you get a amazing contrast to Exalted's "Ha ha you poor sap you're playing something other then a Solar/Abissal/Infernal you don't get to complain your experience sucks it's right there in the manual that Solars rock everybody else drools" and the assumption that just by revealing your PC nature your enemies allies will desert him and join your rightful rule.
The Boogeyman Persecution Complex in Whitewolf games is an absolute dealbreaker.
2E's Players Option should have been continued into a 2.5E.




That was the beginning of the end, IME/IMO.
2E's Players Option should have been continued into a 2.5E.




That was the beginning of the end, IME/IMO.

No, I'm pretty sure TSR's awful accounting was doing that on its own.

No, I'm pretty sure TSR's awful accounting was doing that on its own.




...ugh...please...we're going to bring the late 80's nonsense into this?
Skills and Powers was the best thing to ever happen to AD&D.

It would been nice if it baked a bit more, though.  The class and race tinkering was great.  The attribute system needed more work.
Skills and Powers was the best thing to ever happen to AD&D.







No, the worst, IME/IMO.

Min-maxing rubbish, pfft, then Magic: The Gathering came along, then 3rd Ed...hmm... 

And the game has gained mass donkey-ass-suckitude, since, IME/IMO, something went wrong, best intentions, and all... 

I liked where 5th Ed was heading.
I've removed content from this thread because edition warring is deemed to be forum disruption and is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

You can read how to prevent edition wars here: community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
 
The Boogeyman Persecution Complex in Whitewolf games is an absolute dealbreaker.



What's that? I really like white wolf, but I have never heard this before.
The Boogeyman Persecution Complex in Whitewolf games is an absolute dealbreaker.



What's that? I really like white wolf, but I have never heard this before.

Nearly every WW system had (or still has) some ingrained mechanic of "You have awesome powers, but don't tell anyone or a boogeyman will eat you!"

Exalted, Werewolf, and Vampire had some variant of 'super-police' who show up and cart away anyone naughty, and Mage has the universe itself opening up and eating showoffs.  It's like Paladin screwjobs for everyone!

The Boogeyman Persecution Complex in Whitewolf games is an absolute dealbreaker.



What's that? I really like white wolf, but I have never heard this before.

Nearly every WW system had (or still has) some ingrained mechanic of "You have awesome powers, but don't tell anyone or a boogeyman will eat you!"

Exalted, Werewolf, and Vampire had some variant of 'super-police' who show up and cart away anyone naughty, and Mage has the universe itself opening up and eating showoffs.  It's like Paladin screwjobs for everyone!




Oooohhh, you're talking about things like the masquerade and paradox. Well, when I am a player in vampire, I intentionally crap all over the masquerade. When I run mage, I like to make that point that powerful and prepared mages can safely ignore paradox even when casting in public. Yeah, I can see how in a lot of situations those are major roadblocks, and I can see their importance in the game, but I just like breaking the rules. It's what heroes do after all.
Skills and Powers was the best thing to ever happen to AD&D.

It would been nice if it baked a bit more, though.  The class and race tinkering was great.  The attribute system needed more work.



Eh, I dunno, looking back now Skills and Powers was terribly designed. It was a big deal back then because it gave you some shred of customization in a game that previously just promoted very standardized characters. But in the current day and age of feats, open multiclassing and power choices, the S&P customization was very barebones, and quite honestly most of it was imbalanced as hell. You're trading abilities like "able to construct siege engines" with things like Weapon specialization. That just shouldn't be a valid trade, because one is a story ability and the other is a combat ability.

Then to make matters worse, clerics got tons of character points and could basically purchase abilities to let themselves fight like a fighter and still cast from some important spheres.

Skills and Powers was the worst of the Player's Option books. Spells and magic and Combat and Tactics added flavor and new options ot the system, while S&P was pretty much just a power grab.
Eh, I dunno, looking back now Skills and Powers was terribly designed. It was a big deal back then because it gave you some shred of customization in a game that previously just promoted very standardized characters.

I don't know if it's intentional or not, but the 5E guys seem to have figured out what was "right" about it.  I can't help but think each class having several "schemes" and options is at least partly based on Skills and Powers.

I'll have to agree with dwarfslayer on this. Our table believed that combat and tactics brought options new and fun, while skills and powers were pretty much a munchkin's dream.
I don't know if it's intentional or not, but the 5E guys seem to have figured out what was "right" about it.  I can't help but think each class having several "schemes" and options is at least partly based on Skills and Powers.



I look at the character specialty/backgrounds more like 2E kits, only they're better designed and the tradeoffs make more sense, such as trading skills for different skills or combat abilities for other combat abilities.



The Boogeyman Persecution Complex in Whitewolf games is an absolute dealbreaker.



What's that? I really like white wolf, but I have never heard this before.

Nearly every WW system had (or still has) some ingrained mechanic of "You have awesome powers, but don't tell anyone or a boogeyman will eat you!"

Exalted, Werewolf, and Vampire had some variant of 'super-police' who show up and cart away anyone naughty, and Mage has the universe itself opening up and eating showoffs.  It's like Paladin screwjobs for everyone!




Oooohhh, you're talking about things like the masquerade and paradox. Well, when I am a player in vampire, I intentionally crap all over the masquerade. When I run mage, I like to make that point that powerful and prepared mages can safely ignore paradox even when casting in public. Yeah, I can see how in a lot of situations those are major roadblocks, and I can see their importance in the game, but I just like breaking the rules. It's what heroes do after all.



Yeah cause playing 'heroes' in the World of DARKNESS is totally the point...

If you were a player in my vampire game, you would be going back to character creation quite a bit methinks. I guess I'm just of the mindset that if you can't play within the setting then don't bother and play something else. Want to be a hero? Play D&D, Savage Worlds, or any superhero game. Want to play something dark and gritty? Play WoD, Cthulu or Warhammer.    

As for the conversation about Skills & Powers? Loved them, would love to see a similar system for crafting races and such in Next, but I doubt it'll happen.

To be honest, all the talk about what we can do with 5e consistently takes me back to how they did things in AD&D. I've even gone so far as to start an AD&D game with one of my brothers for giggles and it's actually a really elegent system. Character options are more limited but for some reason they don't feel as locked down as they do in 4e... or even 3e for that matter.


2e you can realise a character concept from lvl 1 and every ability has loads of room for interpretation. It encourages you to be creative in your solutions to problems and even the fighter has got some scope for creative problem solving.


For me I think the real winner is the attribute tables (which I keep banging on about, I know) and the relatively wide latitude given for players and DM to apply abilities and spells.



3e's free multiclassing... well I loved it and I still love it but I actually think I prefer 2e's method. Dual classing needs some work to be worth your time but even that has real potential to be awesome. I like that you can be a pure class with kits and all sorts of funky options but if you multi your options are more limited. It creates a real distinction between a multi and a pure class without forcing the class design to only come into full effect at mid/high levels.

I've even gone so far as to start an AD&D game with one of my brothers for giggles and it's actually a really elegent system.

Can you explain this?  Why do you feel AD&D was an elegant system? 

Please note that I'm not saying one version is better than another.  I have had great fun with all the versions of D&D that I have played (from 2nd to 4th).

Can you explain this?  Why do you feel AD&D was an elegant system? 

"Elegant" is definitely not a label I'd apply to AD&D.


To be honest, all the talk about what we can do with 5e consistently takes me back to how they did things in AD&D. I've even gone so far as to start an AD&D game with one of my brothers for giggles and it's actually a really elegent system. Character options are more limited but for some reason they don't feel as locked down as they do in 4e... or even 3e for that matter.


2e you can realise a character concept from lvl 1 and every ability has loads of room for interpretation. It encourages you to be creative in your solutions to problems and even the fighter has got some scope for creative problem solving.



The problem with having more options is that you have more room for specialization. And that leads to mandatory specialization.  It's the old fighter with a bow problem that 3E/4E happens where all your powers and feats are in stuff with a sword, so if you ever need to use a bow, you're really lacking. Not only are your stats not designed for it, but you're also lacking a bunch of feats/powers too. So a nonspecialized character becomes even worse the more options for specialization that you add.

It works the same for combat manuevers. I remember in 2E you didn't need a special feat to disarm somebody, you could just do it. But then 3E ends up adding feats and now the only way you can effectively disarm people is by having the right feat. So in effect you have a lot less options than you used to have, because if you wanted to trip, disarm or sunder effectively, you needed the right feats.

The appeal of having fewer choices is that you are by definition going to be missing fewer abilities when you have to think outside of the box.  For every sword ability you offer a swordsman is another sword ability that the archer is missing when he has to fight in melee.

I've seen way too many people since 1989 take 2E (which is debatably unbalanced already) and do their absolute best to unbalance it even more. They remove race restrictions, class restrictions, level caps, the need for spell components, alignment restrictions, encumbrance, casting times, and pretty much everything else that, in their minds, they consider "bad design". The worst of those were applied to wizards. They allow wizards to wear full plate. They didn't require spell components. They ignored casting times. They did everything in their power to make the wizard "better", then spent the majority of their time complaining about how over-powered the wizard was. IMO, you have absolutely ZERO right to complain about how unbalanced the wizard was when you took so many extra steps to make it unbalanced. Those restrictions and rules existed for a reason, and that reason wasn't just to screw over a particular class in the game. The wizard already had spells that could reshape reality by the time they reached higher levels. They had to add in details to keep the wizard in check. They gave them severe armor restrictions, casting times, material componenets (some of them VERY expensive and rare), and low hit points. You unbalanced the wizard even more by removing those rules. Don't whine about them being unbalanced when you added to the problem.
I've seen way too many people since 1989 take 2E (which is debatably unbalanced already) and do their absolute best to unbalance it even more. They remove race restrictions, class restrictions, level caps, the need for spell components, alignment restrictions, encumbrance, casting times, and pretty much everything else that, in their minds, they consider "bad design".

Race/class restrictions, level caps, and alignment don't actually balance anything.
I've seen way too many people since 1989 take 2E (which is debatably unbalanced already) and do their absolute best to unbalance it even more. They remove race restrictions, class restrictions, level caps, the need for spell components, alignment restrictions, encumbrance, casting times, and pretty much everything else that, in their minds, they consider "bad design".

Race/class restrictions, level caps, and alignment don't actually balance anything.



And this is exactly what I'm talking about.
People like this will simply remove all of those things, then gripe about how unbalanced the game is, discussing it as though it's the game's fault. That's how you end up with a 3E.

Race/class restrictions existed so that particularly unablanced combos of race and class wouldn't be an issue. They knew that certain combinations skewed the game, and took care of it for you. Level caps, same thing. Why do you think those existed? They knew that if there were no caps, the game would go face-down at high levels (which it did anyway...they didn't do quite enough, IMO, but then no edition has been able to pull of seamless high-level play). 
Alignment is terrible, and D&D Next should do as little as possible with it.

Basically, a sidebar: This is an alignment system.  Do with it as you please.  We're ignoring it.
They knew that if there were no caps, the game would go face-down at high levels (which it did anyway...they didn't do quite enough, IMO, but then no edition has been able to pull of seamless high-level play). 

So... rather than attempt to get levels 13-infinity workable, they just stopped about half the party's advancement dead at around level 12 (and sometimes 8), and hoped the humans would just quit, huh?

Level limits serve no purpose other then to stop campaigns dead.  "No Dorf Wizards!" serves absolutely no purpose, whatsoever.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Race/class restrictions existed so that particularly unablanced combos of race and class wouldn't be an issue. They knew that certain combinations skewed the game, and took care of it for you. Level caps, same thing. Why do you think those existed? They knew that if there were no caps, the game would go face-down at high levels (which it did anyway...they didn't do quite enough, IMO, but then no edition has been able to pull of seamless high-level play). 



No.

Race/class restrictions weren't about balance, they were about flavor. There was nothing inherently broken about a dwarven wizard, any more than a dwarven cleric. Gygax just decided that flavor wise he didn't want dwarven wizards.

As for level caps, they were just a horrible mechanic. Basically they created more imbalance than balance. It was a gamblers mechanic. You gambled the campaign wouldn't go high level and if it didn't get high enough to cap you, you had no drawbacks *at all*. If you did get capped and it ran long, you were basically screwed and had to make a new character. So either way it's not particularly balanced. If you end the game early, you get power for nothing, if you end the game too late, you get a stagnant character who can't advance.

"Power now, hindrance later" or "Hindrance now, Power later" mechanics just do not work at achieving balance. The problem being that later may never come, and the campaign may start later. There's no guarantee your game will start level 1, and there's no guarantee it'll finish level 20. Furthermore, people may swap out characters mid game. So the guy playing the "Power now" character may switch to a "Power later" character at higher levels.

Those sort of mechanics only work if you're playing a game with a fixed end and beginning. If it's a game of magic the gathering or Starcraft. It's fine if one person has more power upfront but hits a cap and the other person is slower to power up but has a larger cieling. This is because those games have fixed starting points and ending points. In D&D, that's just not true. It has never been true.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Race/class restrictions existed so that particularly unablanced combos of race and class wouldn't be an issue. They knew that certain combinations skewed the game, and took care of it for you. Level caps, same thing. Why do you think those existed? They knew that if there were no caps, the game would go face-down at high levels (which it did anyway...they didn't do quite enough, IMO, but then no edition has been able to pull of seamless high-level play). 



No.

Race/class restrictions weren't about balance, they were about flavor. There was nothing inherently broken about a dwarven wizard, any more than a dwarven cleric. Gygax just decided that flavor wise he didn't want dwarven wizards.

As for level caps, they were just a horrible mechanic. Basically they created more imbalance than balance. It was a gamblers mechanic. You gambled the campaign wouldn't go high level and if it didn't get high enough to cap you, you had no drawbacks *at all*. If you did get capped and it ran long, you were basically screwed and had to make a new character. So either way it's not particularly balanced. If you end the game early, you get power for nothing, if you end the game too late, you get a stagnant character who can't advance.

"Power now, hindrance later" or "Hindrance now, Power later" mechanics just do not work at achieving balance. The problem being that later may never come, and the campaign may start later. There's no guarantee your game will start level 1, and there's no guarantee it'll finish level 20. Furthermore, people may swap out characters mid game. So the guy playing the "Power now" character may switch to a "Power later" character at higher levels.

Those sort of mechanics only work if you're playing a game with a fixed end and beginning. If it's a game of magic the gathering or Starcraft. It's fine if one person has more power upfront but hits a cap and the other person is slower to power up but has a larger cieling. This is because those ends have fixed starting points and ending points. In D&D, that's just not true. It has never been true.



 Well described.
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I do not feel as if I have to defend AD&D as it were. I will say that we play AD&D weekly and our group varies to numbers up to seven players. This has been the norm for us for years. We currently run three Campaigns all based in the AD&D 1e rules set. I have a limited experience with 3e. my books are dust covered on a shelf. I can't get my group interestred in it. I have spent alot of time doing research on 4e but am unable to find an "encounters" group to play in in a 50 mile radius from my home near a college town in California. I tried to join one and get this: my local gaming store owner invited me to his 1e game on friday nights but told me that they no longer ran encounters. He has 6 players and is looking for a few more. 
My group varying from age 40 to age 13 is excited about the reprints and have bought them - They bring them weekly to our game and one has began his own campaign.(The thirteen year old is the budding D.M.) To each his own I say. We are looking forward to D&D Next.
  Playstyles vary from group to group in every system. The prefered style of one may not suit another. I can rules **** any system a D.M. allows me to. Balance is a word that gets thrown about on this forum alot but one mans "Balance" is another mans "boring". One mans unfair restriction is anothers common sense guidline. I see no reason to hack up another persons prefered system no matter it's edition. I am free to disagree with his prefered playstyle if it does not suit me. If that style of play is not supported by the system I like then I'm fine with him playing a ruleset that does support it. The goal of D&D Next is  modularity, so perhaps then we can set down and play the same system even if it's at different tables at a Con and both enjoy ourselves.  You hate edition X ?- I don't care. Consider this,

                                 " Edition wars kill players and that will kill D&D"
                                                          Brightmantle, First knight of the brave order of W.T.F.
 
 
"Edition wars kill players and that will kill D&D"

I seriously doubt anyone has actually dropped dead from seeing "BECMI sux!" on an internet forum.


  Playstyles vary from group to group in every system. The prefered style of one may not suit another. I can rules **** any system a D.M. allows me to. Balance is a word that gets thrown about on this forum alot but one mans "Balance" is another mans "boring". One mans unfair restriction is anothers common sense guidline. I see no reason to hack up another persons prefered system no matter it's edition. I am free to disagree with his prefered playstyle if it does not suit me. If that style of play is not supported by the system I like then I'm fine with him playing a ruleset that does support it. The goal of D&D Next is  modularity, so perhaps then we can set down and play the same system even if it's at different tables at a Con and both enjoy ourselves.  You hate edition X ?- I don't care. Consider this,

                                 " Edition wars kill players and that will kill D&D"
                                                          Brightmantle, First knight of the brave order of W.T.F.
 
 



Truer words have rarely been spoken.

It's my hope the designers will come out with a product that fits my playstyle with the right modules being used.  Dunno if they will succeed but thats the hope.  And if they can also support the playstyles of others (even if those playstyles are things I would hate) with a different set of modules that would be ideal.

 
"Edition wars kill players and that will kill D&D"

I seriously doubt anyone has actually dropped dead from seeing "BECMI sux!" on an internet forum.


Ha that's good I like that. And I'm sure all the vitroil "we" are so proud we spew recruits new players to the D&D hobby every time we bash a edition. In fact The over 50 percent of non posting players who read the garbage written on these forums are so impressed they have been won over by it to play " our" prefered edition over ever other. All snark aside That only further divides the fanbase and shows ones true colors. "Haters gonna hate" they say. it drives people away from the franchise and on to games like Thirteenth age and Pathfinder.
it drives people away from the franchise and on to games like Thirteenth age and Pathfinder.

Nah.  It drives people to XBox.