The Appeal Of Older Editions.

Since 2000 I have more or less been a big fan of d20. However recently I have been eyeing up 2nd ed as a serious contender for our groups primary version of D&D. As a general rue I have found somehting I like in every edition of D&D and when I am playing 3.XYZ there is alot I miss from 2nd ed and 4th ed in it. Its one reason I'm not to woried about how the playtest is turing out. I'll either like the final product and buy it or pass on it and keep playing whatever. I do not regard myself as a hard core holdout as I have moved from BECM to AD&D to d20 D&D and it was not until 4th ed came out Ipassed on a new D&D edition for various reasons that are pointless to go over yet again.

 While I enjoy options and 3rd ed and d20 in general is very liberal with them it does create problems as well. Both in terms of balance (high level PF/3.5) and in complexity. My players like d20 based D&D although they also like 2nd ed after I ran it for a couple of session. I do not really enjoy running 3rd ed that much anymore as I have more or less been the eternal DM. In fact I have hardly played 3rd ed at all and I missed out on playing 4th ed. 13 years of power attack, rapid shot and CoDzilla have kind of burned me out.

 And this is the appeal of older editions of the game specifically 2nd ed as I fine 1st and BECM lacking options. I liked them once upon a time but nowdays not so much. 2nd ed reigns in the abundence of players options 3rd and 4th ed had but with ts splats it still gives them an abundent range of options to choose from up to and including building their own class or modifying an existing one. It is kind of refreshing even a basic change like taking away magic item creation from players can make along with WBL guidelines and assumptions 3rd and 4th ed had.

 2nd ed also lends itself well to houserules. Level and racial restrictions, I don't use them and I buffed humans to compensate. Low magic I can do with default rules as PCs cannot create magic items until higher level. High magic also works. The classes are also better balanced than in 3rd ed but without having to resort 4th ed system and I will be more lenient with 2nd eds options for the non spellcasters. THACO and saves I prefer 3rd and 4th eds BAB/saves/defenses but I can work with them.

 The game is simpler, mechanically it is a bit messy but I like running it as the DM and the players seem happy to play it. After playing PF again on Sunday and spending hours rewriting it I have decided to go back to the future and 2nd ed using elements of 3rd ed via some of the players option books is where I want to be in regards to D&D. Burnt out on 3rd ed, not enthused about 4th and it is easier to houserule 2nd ed than try and fix 3.XYZ.

 In 2008 I was not ready to move on from 3rd ed. Now I am and depending on where D&DN goes I could be a very keen customer. I want the complexity of a late era 2nd ed game with some of the innovations from 3rd ed and some of the balance from 4th ed without the unified power structure of 4th. I have already commited to buying the core rules for D&DN, beyond that the fate of D&D for me is in Mikes hands and anyone reading this thread and playtesting the game. I want that pre d20 feel of the game with modern mechanics. Skills and feats I can live with but I do not want them used like they were in 3rd and 4th ed- to many, feat taxes, glut of useless feats, band aids on various concepts.

 Less feats, less classes, less races, more gaming and adventures please. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

 Less feats, less classes, less races, more gaming and adventures please. 



Here the short version of what he said. 

It seems he wants to play the barebone of D&D and more of it. 

I like the complexity of 3.5 myself, but also love the At-Will/Encounter stylings of 4th Ed and the Skills & Powers Point buy/Stat breakdown of 2nd Ed (Con has a purpose other that HPs! Who knew?). I'd love to see a D&D Gish Ed. I'm pretty sure WotC would never make such a thing, and fear any fan made version would just get tossed on the scrapheap of "another D&D clone" (assuming it even got past the legal hurdles).
 Less feats, less classes, less races, more gaming and adventures please. 



Here the short version of what he said. 

It seems he wants to play the barebone of D&D and more of it. 




 Not that bare boned. I did say I like feats, skills and I do not mind extra races/classes etc. Late 2nd ed did offer a reasonable degree of complexity. I do not want a bare boned 1st/BECM version of D&D.  I would prefer a more restrained approach than 3rd and 4th ed. A new race or 2 in a camapign setting or a races book like Complete Book of Humanoids or the Advanced Races Guide is fine, spamming them not so much.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about core 3.5? I know that 3E/Pathfinder gets really complicated as you add more and more options, but when you only have the core races/classes - it's really not so bad. You still have the benefits of the unified d20 mechanic, instead of disparate sub-systems in AD&D, which goes a long way.

The metagame is not the game.

I have been thinking much the same thing, but I do like the playtest.

I have been going through my AD&D 2nd edition books and trying to evalute whether I can make the game as versatile as PAthfinder.

Pathfinder gives my players a lot of choices, or alot of conditions that benefit their extra attack (EX quarry).  If through kits and the like I can make 2nd edition work that way I would consider just playing that.  There is more incentive with WOTC releasing all editions again.

The playtest seems to be wrapping up as a game I really want to play.  Easy to DM, and good choices for the PC's.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
13 years of power attack, rapid shot and CoDzilla have kind of burned me out.



I'm sorry for your pain and boredom. 
It seems you had some bad luck with 3ed, that's all.

13 years of 3ed here too and I've seen all sorts of interesting class/build choices from my players.
Only once or twice did someone take Rapid Shot that I can remember.
Power Attack was kind of a favorite, yeah, but mostly I saw people getting it to reach Cleave. I don't think they used the PA itself that much (guess my players prefered to have more guaranteed hits).
Very rarely did someone play a Cleric, and I don't think anyone in my groups has ever played a druid.  I even buffed the druid a little at one time to see if it would appeal to anyone but... no.

I think Rogues and Fighters were the absolute favorites, but those classes in 3ed offer so much diversity that seldom one looked like the other.
In our current group I have a fighter going for the more standard offensive/cleave build with greataxe, and another focusing on defensive abilities + disarm + a bit of mounted combat.
There's also a Barb going for a Bull Rush build and a few other maneuvers.

Oh, we also have a wizard who's addicted to fear spells, and a rogue who's investing practically everything in skills, and usually runs away and hides at the first sight of a tough fight. lol







complexity of a late era 2nd ed game with some of the innovations from 3rd ed




You should really, really have a look at Myth & Magic.
It's a 2ed remake with little bits of 3ed.
Just bits, like higher = better instead of neg. THAC0 and AC, stuff like that.
A few combat options they included as Weapon Proficiencies as well, but it's not like feats at all.


The book is really well done, and it retains all that "feel" of AD&D.

Here's the Starter Guide which you can download for free!!
www.rpgnow.com/product/100492/Myth-%26-M...

It has practically al the rules, except it only has the 4 basic classes and goes only till level 10.
But gives you all you need to know about the conversion of this "2.5".
The complete book is also for sale on that site.



Out of curiosity, how do you feel about core 3.5? I know that 3E/Pathfinder gets really complicated as you add more and more options, but when you only have the core races/classes - it's really not so bad. You still have the benefits of the unified d20 mechanic, instead of disparate sub-systems in AD&D, which goes a long way.



 It still has the broken spells, the combat chapter that needs a rewrite and feats like natural spell. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Zardnaar, First of all hello fellow D.F.er. Now then. I am in the same boat with you bro. I like 3.75 I.E. P..but by and large prefer AD&D and Ill play either 1st or 2nd edition dependent on what others dig. I have a weekly to by weekly AD&D game as well as two I play in and a P.F. game I run as a mini series for as new school fix. My heart is in old school Advanced Dungeons and Dragons which is why I am most excited about the reprints rather than what I have seen in Next. Ya Mearls is holding the games future in his hands which to me is like giving ther keys to the kingdom to Mr. Magoo. I try to keep my hopes high and expectations low for Next realizing that I will always play AD&D no matter what else ends up becoming the Next flash in the pan. man I miss TSR. Will I buy Next? After what Iv'e seen so far not likely. Will i continue buying reprints? You bet. My honest advice: Play what you like.
mearls might hold the future but the past is secure my brother, Make the past your present.
Power Attack, Rapid Shot, and CoDzilla were favorites in my group as well.  3.0 D&D got me into roleplaying, and was the game we primarily played.  I liked a lot about 4th edition, but hated the entire PC/Monster balance, which is the backbone of the game.  Ultimately, I'm a something of a minimalist, so the premise of "less is more" really rings true to me. 
i agree i have every 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition book on pdf including all the magazines and everything in tsr's library i missed mentioning in pdf format so im good to go there as they work sweet on an ipad. also there are alot of websites that activly make new content for the old editions and have forums for quetsions and stuff so if next turns into a pile of dookie i have what i want already and i wont look back
If you ask me how I feel about the older editons. I say like an older video game of a series like
Resident Evil or Final Fantasy. With the older edition, you can see how D&D is made, but the newer editions it feels more modern and if I dare say new. 

5e to me feels like a better version of 3.5e and that is why I support it.  
 I don't really see D&DN as an update of 3.5. I do see it as a decent version of D&D and I'm optimistic as to where it goes. Its been so long 2nd ed is almost new again and for a good chunk of the group it is new as they have never really played it. I'm going to houserule it a bit 1st by dumping level limits, racial restrictions, tweaking humans and using some houserules.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

If you ask me how I feel about the older editons. I say like an older video game of a series like
Resident Evil or Final Fantasy. With the older edition, you can see how D&D is made, but the newer editions it feels more modern and if I dare say new. 

5e to me feels like a better version of 3.5e and that is why I support it.  



Final Fantasy stopped being relevant after Tactics, Resident Evil after 4.

I mean, Shinji Mikami left Capcom over disputes with porting Resident Evil 4 in the first place.  Resident Evil has never been the same in spirit since.

thats what happened to ad&d people left or were fired and you have this mess
thats what happened to ad&d people left or were fired and you have this mess



No, what happened to AD&D is they mismanaged the company, went bankrupt - and you have this "mess."


Carl
My stated goal since even hearing about D&D:N has been, essentially, to bandaid 2E with what I can make fit between the two.  I prefer 2E in many ways, but a lot of the mechanics are a little dated.  I'd like to polish it up (more unified mechanics and the like - close the gaps between random disparities and subsystems) and modernized enough to make it enjoyable to newer players.  I like the bounded accuracy skill-system so far, which is great - I don't think Nonweapon Proficiencies are particularly appealing in modern terms, and it's an easy swap.  There's mostly just little nitpicks here and there that don't ruin 2E, but could be vastly improved: making "thieving skills" available to everyone, but giving thieves bigger benefits in general to use them and improving the Thief's combat viability; consolidating attribute bonuses - exceptional strength never bothered me while playing it originally, but it's a bit of a confusing eyesore at this point; adding the later classes into the mix in some form (this is where I had planned on leaning on Next a lot more).  The list goes on and on.  Not a lot of wholesale rule-replacement, just a good deal of updates-via-patchwork here and there.   
My stated goal since even hearing about D&D:N has been, essentially, to bandaid 2E with what I can make fit between the two.  I prefer 2E in many ways, but a lot of the mechanics are a little dated.  I'd like to polish it up (more unified mechanics and the like - close the gaps between random disparities and subsystems) and modernized enough to make it enjoyable to newer players.  I like the bounded accuracy skill-system so far, which is great - I don't think Nonweapon Proficiencies are particularly appealing in modern terms, and it's an easy swap.  There's mostly just little nitpicks here and there that don't ruin 2E, but could be vastly improved: making "thieving skills" available to everyone, but giving thieves bigger benefits in general to use them and improving the Thief's combat viability; consolidating attribute bonuses - exceptional strength never bothered me while playing it originally, but it's a bit of a confusing eyesore at this point; adding the later classes into the mix in some form (this is where I had planned on leaning on Next a lot more).  The list goes on and on.  Not a lot of wholesale rule-replacement, just a good deal of updates-via-patchwork here and there.   



My ideal game is something like (and this is greatly oversimplified):

The play speed and balance of AD&D, the customization of 3.x or 4E (more like 3.x in mechanics but with more attention to balance as in 4E but without a lot of the gamebreaking options of 3.x) while still absorbing some of the best ideas of 4E (like at-will spells, power sources to organize classes, etc.)

To turn it around - I liked all editions, but they all had serious flaws:  aspects of the game which were handled better in one of the other editions.  AD&D was the most fun - but it didn't allow for much customization.  3.x really brought home the idea of customization - but it had grossly overpowered casters (and some other combinations);  4E was the best constructed game with regards to balance and making sure each character always had something 'iconic' to do - but it was too complicated in play at the table (resulting in very long combats), and had disconcertingly dissociated mechanics.


As a whole - they all had something useful to offer, and they all had flaws.  I'd like to see a game that takes the best of all of these. 

5E is at least heading, by fits and starts, down that path.

Carl
I started on 3.5 and I still consider it the closest thing thusfar to a perfect game. I admit that in the d20 system players become massively overpowered at higher levels. I think the skill system was great, but skill checks become irrelevant if you have 24 ranks in a skill plus synergy bonus, ability bonus, and a feat. Feats are just one of the greatest things ever added to roleplaying games, though. Mostly I just love how much content it has, with so many interesting races and classes and spells. 3.5 had problems, but once you know the system they are easy to work around. Since monsters and PCs work off of the same character building system, it's very easy to adjust a monster's power in a balanced way.
Near as I can tell, from all the information they have released, there will be 3 main "versions" of D&DN.

There will be the "basic" game, the most chewed down basic bare-bones system, with the most basic rules kept in but everything else tossed out - every optional rule (see note 1) taken out. This one might not be so much an official version, but basically core minus everything they can take out and still call it D&D the RPG.

There will be the "core" game. Several optional rules put back in, and this will be the assumed introductory level of the game. Expect feats, maneuvers, and some degree of complexity, but nothing extravagant. Honestly, somewhere between 2e and 3e in mood and feel, leaning closer to 2e, but with an overall more forgiving difficulty. A relatively solid ruleset that does nothing new or spectacular - mostly an introductory level, and a solid, common baseline to build the next version from.

There will be "your" game. Take the core game, peel off any optional rules you don't like, put in any you like, and modify the whole thing with "rules modules" (see note 2) - possibly on a per-adventure basis. This gives you the maximum flexibility in making "your" D&D while still retaining a common basis.

If D&DN will be remembered for anything, it will be this: the modularity stacked on top of a common rules system that basically turns "house rules" (see note 3) into a discernable mechanic. This means people that run the game stripped totally down will be able to run the same published modules (and whine less) as the people that want a ton of rules put in (so they can whine less). It's basically the "everybody should be happy because our plug-and-play modules mostly support every game style you could want out of D&D". Elegant (if it works).

What book with have the modules for your game? No idea. But you'll have old school, new school, or anything inbetween supported, with adventures published that are (theoretically) compatible with whatever "your" version of the game is.

Note 1: "Optional Rule" meaning minor rule variances that don't warrent inclusion in a module. Things like feats, skill dice, backgrounds - things that we're being told right now are "optional and you can leave them out if you want".

Note 2: "Rules Modules" will be pre-packaged containers of house rules designed with a specific theme or intent in mind. I would assume these modules would have several rules, with the ability to use one, more than one, or all of the rules in the module to fit D&D to your playstyle.

Note 3: "House Rules" are rules made at your table to affect your game, generally to either add something you want or alleviate a shortcoming in the rules that your group percieves. Not errata, updates, or anything like that.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

As a whole - they all had something useful to offer, and they all had flaws.  I'd like to see a game that takes the best of all of these. 

5E is at least heading, by fits and starts, down that path.



Hear, hear!
I started on 3.5 and I still consider it the closest thing thusfar to a perfect game. I admit that in the d20 system players become massively overpowered at higher levels. I think the skill system was great, but skill checks become irrelevant if you have 24 ranks in a skill plus synergy bonus, ability bonus, and a feat. Feats are just one of the greatest things ever added to roleplaying games, though. Mostly I just love how much content it has, with so many interesting races and classes and spells. 3.5 had problems, but once you know the system they are easy to work around. Since monsters and PCs work off of the same character building system, it's very easy to adjust a monster's power in a balanced way.


My biggest gripe with 3.x is actually the assumed progression, and bolting everything onto said assumption.  Wealth by level, which in turn establishes group CR, which in turn establishes enemy CR, and so on.  It feels like I'm caught in an Elder Scrolls "level bubble", and the world is scaling around my capacities instead of feeling like an organic place I can go explore.  Math gets so incredibly wonky and exponentially outrageous at high level play; a dual-wielding fighter takes upwards of 5 minutes just to resolve one turn (if you're lucky).  The system worked, for me, up until about level 10-12.  After that, it just falls in on itself.  I'm sure that's not the case for everyone, but I think there's probably a good reason most of Pathfinder's Society modules end at 12th instead of higher.    


Near as I can tell, from all the information they have released, there will be 3 main "versions" of D&DN.

There will be the "basic" game, the most chewed down basic bare-bones system, with the most basic rules kept in but everything else tossed out - every optional rule (see note 1) taken out. This one might not be so much an official version, but basically core minus everything they can take out and still call it D&D the RPG.

There will be the "core" game. Several optional rules put back in, and this will be the assumed introductory level of the game. Expect feats, maneuvers, and some degree of complexity, but nothing extravagant. Honestly, somewhere between 2e and 3e in mood and feel, leaning closer to 2e, but with an overall more forgiving difficulty. A relatively solid ruleset that does nothing new or spectacular - mostly an introductory level, and a solid, common baseline to build the next version from.

There will be "your" game. Take the core game, peel off any optional rules you don't like, put in any you like, and modify the whole thing with "rules modules" (see note 2) - possibly on a per-adventure basis. This gives you the maximum flexibility in making "your" D&D while still retaining a common basis.

If D&DN will be remembered for anything, it will be this: the modularity stacked on top of a common rules system that basically turns "house rules" (see note 3) into a discernable mechanic. This means people that run the game stripped totally down will be able to run the same published modules (and whine less) as the people that want a ton of rules put in (so they can whine less). It's basically the "everybody should be happy because our plug-and-play modules mostly support every game style you could want out of D&D". Elegant (if it works).

What book with have the modules for your game? No idea. But you'll have old school, new school, or anything inbetween supported, with adventures published that are (theoretically) compatible with whatever "your" version of the game is.

Note 1: "Optional Rule" meaning minor rule variances that don't warrent inclusion in a module. Things like feats, skill dice, backgrounds - things that we're being told right now are "optional and you can leave them out if you want".

Note 2: "Rules Modules" will be pre-packaged containers of house rules designed with a specific theme or intent in mind. I would assume these modules would have several rules, with the ability to use one, more than one, or all of the rules in the module to fit D&D to your playstyle.

Note 3: "House Rules" are rules made at your table to affect your game, generally to either add something you want or alleviate a shortcoming in the rules that your group percieves. Not errata, updates, or anything like that.



That's what's making me nervous.  There are no shortage of claims about how modular and interchangable Next is going to be, but they are showing us next to no evidence to support it.  If the premier feature of the game is the ability to replicate all editions of play - but with a new coat of paint - why are we not putting these modules to the test?  Most of what I'm seeing is an attempt to appease multiple playstyles under the same format, rather than multiple playstyles over several formats.
There are no shortage of claims about how modular and interchangable Next is going to be, but they are showing us next to no evidence to support it.  If the premier feature of the game is the ability to replicate all editions of play - but with a new coat of paint - why are we not putting these modules to the test?  Most of what I'm seeing is an attempt to appease multiple playstyles under the same format, rather than multiple playstyles over several formats.

I think we're seeing them test the core ruleset. I don't think any modules have been developed past the pre-alpha stage yet. They want the firm core-rule foundation set out before they start making up modules - this makes sense, because if something core changes, in can change anything in other modules too.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

There are no shortage of claims about how modular and interchangable Next is going to be, but they are showing us next to no evidence to support it.  If the premier feature of the game is the ability to replicate all editions of play - but with a new coat of paint - why are we not putting these modules to the test?  Most of what I'm seeing is an attempt to appease multiple playstyles under the same format, rather than multiple playstyles over several formats.

I think we're seeing them test the core ruleset. I don't think any modules have been developed past the pre-alpha stage yet. They want the firm core-rule foundation set out before they start making up modules - this makes sense, because if something core changes, in can change anything in other modules too.



That could be the case - and I am hoping it is.  I had thought the content available in each packet would be a bit more forthcoming, I suppose (we're getting close to a year of playtesting, right?).  I just worry that time constraints are going to make the modular portion a rushed effort to hit deadlines, or too short of a phase to gain anything amounting to an informed response.  Much as I think WotC wants to put the best thing out they possibly can, this isn't Blizzard we're talking about; they aren't allowed to "release it when it's done."

I am planning on mixing and matching what I can and what I like.  As I prefer 1e/2e the basics will come from hthese.  Tho I am in the playtest - I was impressed with the first packet and feel it has spiraled downward since.  But I am hoping it will get better, but, if not I know I can bend AD&D to play the way I want.

Restraint. I like that word, especially in the context of expanding D&D.


I love my feats and skills, but I have to say 2e has become my main game lately because it's so quick to the table. You don't have to tease anything out of it or set it up just so. As my group has less and less time to play, a reduction in the faff and the planning is amazing.

 Less feats, less classes, less races, more gaming and adventures please. 



Here the short version of what he said. 

It seems he wants to play the barebone of D&D and more of it. 




Well some times to many choices gets to the point of paralasys of choice.
4th edition has 11 feats that give a bonus to initiative.
improved initiative being the major one giving a +4 bonus and many that give a +2 bonus and a +2 bonus to a specific skill.

I hope that in 5th feats keep more defined.
One feat to improve initiative.
and one feeat too make a character better at a specific skill.

after a while it felt like these skill + initiative feats where created as filler to fill out spalt books.

 
There were many, many, things I found to recommend 2nd Ed.

However, the one that sticks out in my mind, especialyl in context of DDN, is how ability checks worked.
Your actual ability score often mattered.
As noises have been made that the abilitycheck should be one fo the spinal struts of the game, I would have thought they would have used a system that made the ability score relevant, rather than half the ability score... hrmm...

While aiming for the rather static and bounded abilities of earlier editions, they have left linear bonus acquisition (rather than parabolic), which lead to some funny maths and stats in earlier playtest packets.

However more on topic, there will always be tension between a desire for a quick play, streamlined system, and a crunchy, fidgetity bit system with lots of customization, sub systems and options.
Offer the 3 tier system seems like a good compromise on this front... provided the basic tier actually is streamlined and light on twitchy subsystems... and the latter tiers offer coherent directions for customization, rather than options for the sake of options, few of which interact well with each other or the system as a whole.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
There were many, many, things I found to recommend 2nd Ed.

However, the one that sticks out in my mind, especialyl in context of DDN, is how ability checks worked.
Your actual ability score often mattered.
As noises have been made that the abilitycheck should be one fo the spinal struts of the game, I would have thought they would have used a system that made the ability score relevant, rather than half the ability score... hrmm...

While aiming for the rather static and bounded abilities of earlier editions, they have left linear bonus acquisition (rather than parabolic), which lead to some funny maths and stats in earlier playtest packets.

However more on topic, there will always be tension between a desire for a quick play, streamlined system, and a crunchy, fidgetity bit system with lots of customization, sub systems and options.
Offer the 3 tier system seems like a good compromise on this front... provided the basic tier actually is streamlined and light on twitchy subsystems... and the latter tiers offer coherent directions for customization, rather than options for the sake of options, few of which interact well with each other or the system as a whole.




Yeah - when they originally announced that they were going to use ability scores as the interaction mechanic - I had a brief flicker of hope that they would go with something like 3d6 -(or nd6 depending on difficulty) or even a d20 roll compared to the actual ability score, rather than the same old d20 roll plus ability score mod.  But the hope didn't last....


Carl
I do love AD&D ability checks. They're one of the most intuitive and freely applicable and transparent mechanics out there.
Yes, and Check Vs Ability score would have worked nicely with Bounded Accuracy as well.

I would just add this twist to it compared to AD&D, in that you have to roll as high as possible with a d20 without surpassing the ability score. Proximity to the cap would indicate degree of success. 

I can kinda see why they didn't with attributes climbing above 18 so regularly. I've noticed that unless I modify the rolls heavily (time consuming, makes my brain hurt) an AD&D-style ability check in someone's prime requisite is often a formality.


If they can get the universal DC chart right then that will do the same job and probably work better.


I can kinda see why they didn't with attributes climbing above 18 so regularly. I've noticed that unless I modify the rolls heavily (time consuming, makes my brain hurt) an AD&D-style ability check in someone's prime requisite is often a formality.


If they can get the universal DC chart right then that will do the same job and probably work better.




I would it by adding difficulty rates as + to the dice roll. Something like:

- Average: +0

- Moderate: +5

- Hard: +10         
13 years of power attack, rapid shot and CoDzilla have kind of burned me out.



I'm sorry for your pain and boredom. 
It seems you had some bad luck with 3ed, that's all.

13 years of 3ed here too and I've seen all sorts of interesting class/build choices from my players.
Only once or twice did someone take Rapid Shot that I can remember.
Power Attack was kind of a favorite, yeah, but mostly I saw people getting it to reach Cleave. I don't think they used the PA itself that much (guess my players prefered to have more guaranteed hits).
Very rarely did someone play a Cleric, and I don't think anyone in my groups has ever played a druid.  I even buffed the druid a little at one time to see if it would appeal to anyone but... no.

I think Rogues and Fighters were the absolute favorites, but those classes in 3ed offer so much diversity that seldom one looked like the other.
In our current group I have a fighter going for the more standard offensive/cleave build with greataxe, and another focusing on defensive abilities + disarm + a bit of mounted combat.
There's also a Barb going for a Bull Rush build and a few other maneuvers.

Oh, we also have a wizard who's addicted to fear spells, and a rogue who's investing practically everything in skills, and usually runs away and hides at the first sight of a tough fight. lol







complexity of a late era 2nd ed game with some of the innovations from 3rd ed




You should really, really have a look at Myth & Magic.
It's a 2ed remake with little bits of 3ed.
Just bits, like higher = better instead of neg. THAC0 and AC, stuff like that.
A few combat options they included as Weapon Proficiencies as well, but it's not like feats at all.


The book is really well done, and it retains all that "feel" of AD&D.

Here's the Starter Guide which you can download for free!!
www.rpgnow.com/product/100492/Myth-%26-M...

It has practically al the rules, except it only has the 4 basic classes and goes only till level 10.
But gives you all you need to know about the conversion of this "2.5".
The complete book is also for sale on that site.




My experience mimics yours.  I think the reason I may not be switching to 2nd edition is just because (even though they all love 2nd edition) really like the versatality of 3rd edition.

It is my experience that the Fighter classes are the favorites.  I have one player who over the two campaigns I have run with different PC's has chosen a Cavalier (Pathfinder) as his PC for both of them.  He used a different one and he is amazed at how differently the two characters of the same class can play depending on the options you choose.



CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!

I can kinda see why they didn't with attributes climbing above 18 so regularly. I've noticed that unless I modify the rolls heavily (time consuming, makes my brain hurt) an AD&D-style ability check in someone's prime requisite is often a formality.


If they can get the universal DC chart right then that will do the same job and probably work better.


I would it by adding difficulty rates as + to the dice roll. Something like:

- Average: +0

- Moderate: +5

- Hard: +10         

Yeah I pretty much do that. The long-assed list of situational modifiers in 2e is totally not welcome. I do enjoy the skill dice in the playtest.


 Less feats, less classes, less races, more gaming and adventures please. 




Yeah, definitely agree.

The thing I always hated about 3E was the raw amount of dumpster diving you had to do. Most of the feats or spells or whatever were pure garbage, so you had to sift to find anything reasonably good. It really felt like they were just filling pages with garbage feats to get the page count up.

Then to make matters worse, thanks to PrCs, you had to basically plan your entire build from level 1 to make sure you qualify for stuff.

I hated that. A lot of times I just wanted to make a character and play, but with 3E you just couldn't do that. Making characters was just plain exhausting.

 Less feats, less classes, less races, more gaming and adventures please. 




Yeah, definitely agree.

The thing I always hated about 3E was the raw amount of dumpster diving you had to do. Most of the feats or spells or whatever were pure garbage, so you had to sift to find anything reasonably good. It really felt like they were just filling pages with garbage feats to get the page count up.

Then to make matters worse, thanks to PrCs, you had to basically plan your entire build from level 1 to make sure you qualify for stuff.

I hated that. A lot of times I just wanted to make a character and play, but with 3E you just couldn't do that. Making characters was just plain exhausting.




And half the time you had to take a crap feat because it was a prerequisite for something else you actually wanted....

Carl

 Less feats, less classes, less races, more gaming and adventures please. 




Yeah, definitely agree.

The thing I always hated about 3E was the raw amount of dumpster diving you had to do. Most of the feats or spells or whatever were pure garbage, so you had to sift to find anything reasonably good. It really felt like they were just filling pages with garbage feats to get the page count up.

Then to make matters worse, thanks to PrCs, you had to basically plan your entire build from level 1 to make sure you qualify for stuff.

I hated that. A lot of times I just wanted to make a character and play, but with 3E you just couldn't do that. Making characters was just plain exhausting.




And half the time you had to take a crap feat because it was a prerequisite for something else you actually wanted....

Carl



What, like Power Attack?  Or maybe you're thinking Expertise?

Restraint. I like that word, especially in the context of expanding D&D.


I love my feats and skills, but I have to say 2e has become my main game lately because it's so quick to the table. You don't have to tease anything out of it or set it up just so. As my group has less and less time to play, a reduction in the faff and the planning is amazing.




This is one of the biggest reasons that the new campaign I'm starting this weekend is using 2nd edition instead of 3.5 - time. It's so quick to prep for each session. Of course, it helps that I have a bookshelf overflowing with 2nd edition material, but even writing adventures from scratch is just so much faster and easier. And then the game just plays faster, because we spend less time figuring out tactics or looking up rules and more time roleplaying and exploring.

That is why I was hoping 5E would be a mix of 1E/2E with the design principles of 4E, instead of going the direction of 3E. What I want is 2E, with some current features of D&D added, minus the bucket of feats and associated features that started with 3E.
Same here; I currently use the (retroclone) Blood and Treasure rules for my regular campaign, basically an AD&D and d20 hybrid with an older edition feel but with some 3rd edition classes, ascending AC and a simple skill system and a small (optional) list of feats (no feat-trees). There is less "build" in character creation and less and simpler rules during play. thus more houseruling, adhoc rulings and "DM"-fiat but part of that is part of the appeal; the lighter ruleset means adding extra optuions and rules have less chance of having unforseen consequences later in the campaign.

The appeal of the older editions to me (warning!: opinion) is because there are less actions mechanically confined and affected with skills/feats/powers etc. what the characters do are more interesting to me than with the newer D&D editions. What the characters do is described to me instead of "rule-quoted" to me. Also, because there is less "build" in characters the growth of a character is more campaign related and, to me, more interesting. I have DM-ed 3, 3.5 and 4E and did adhere to the "yes, you can"-doctrine but I've found that I cared less about my player's PCs than in my D&D and AD&D campaigns.
Sign In to post comments