I remember playing 3.5e (well, my DM was playing 3e, I was rolling up 3.5e characters without even realizing I did so) and feeling things were pretty complicated in the sense that:
1. Wizards had to prepare spells. With my lack of any tactical thinking, that would not have been so helpful, so I always rolled sorceror instead. Also, you had to get ingredients to cast certain spells, I wasn't sure if that meant as simple as 'have the amount of gold and consider yourself as having the bought the ingredients worth that much', or as complex as 'let's see, I'd like to order 1 eye of newt, two batwings, seven femurs (sp?) and a used shoe' (as in actually looking up specific ingredients to purchase them, DDO simplifies this by just buying the one reagent to cater to all of a spell level). I certainly appreciate how it makes you feel like your character truly is a caster, but the idea was such a pain that thankfully my DM never held me to it. 2. Modifiers for just about everything: it's -this dark-, there's this many minuses to your roll, it's -that dark-, this many minuses to your roll, there's -this many trees-, this many minuses to your roll, there's -that many trees-, this many minuses to your roll. When I had this other guy DMing me, he never put it into play (mainly because my party would've benefitted the most out of it) and none of us even knew these rules existed, when -I- DM'ed, he popped these rules out during what was supposed to be a boss fight at night in the forest where they catch him unaware, the boss never had a chance (the guy incidentally was never liked as a player by anyone who DM'ed him, especially for how he liked to exploit noobie DM's). 3. The different rules for disarming, dropping a foe prone, sundering and so on, pathfinder streamlining this really made it thankfully something I'd like to try out. Of course then you had your plusses against a prone enemy, and your enemy's minuses against you. 4. Grappling seemed like an interesting concept, giving someone the freedom to do it if he wished, only thing is, it's huge list of rules and how it's conducted turned everyone off. Also, it struck me that grappling could not be used effectively in combat (maybe I misunderstood how it worked), even a monk would be better off fighting without grappling, ALTHOUGH I do remember seeing somewhere additional rules for grappling that would allow you to throttle your opponent, throw him and generally stuff you may call wrestling moves. 5. Mounted combat added its own degree of complexity (even in 4e none of us bothered with it), ride checks for not letting the horse/creature get spooked, stuff about not making full attacks if your mount moves more than five feet (1 square) for melee, full attacks as normal with ranged, concentration checks for spell casting. 6. We never really mastered the concept of travel so we simply skipped those parts or used transitional sequences like 'you're on an airship and it gets attacked' so that there's never really any downtime. There was the distance we'd cover in a day on foot, distance by mount, ability to gather food, ability to endure the weather and even how long we could hold our breath underwater. Even when it came to distance we could cover, our size category mattered, our encumbrance and several other things that affected how fast we actually moved. 7. Keeping track of time, if we DID travel by the book, how many days did it take us? We were in a town for the last line of quests, how many days passed? How much worth in rations? Does sleeping in the forest in a sleeping bag make much difference than sleeping straight on the dirt floor?
All those things I mentioned we simply avoided completely, and I honestly feel I/we didn't enjoy DnD to the fullest because there was so much to commit to memory. Looking back (all I can do is look back, my damn DM switched to 4e and doesn't want to bother with 3e/3.5e ever again (never tried pathfinder but so long as it's an extension of 3e it fits the bill for him)), I think maybe if we kept notes handy on paper we could've given them (the things stated above) a fair trial and probably would've liked them.
But I digress, my question is:
Is 1e/2e complicated to learn? Would I be looking at almanac sized books filled to the brim with complex rules for playing the game or is it as complex as 3e was, just simply a different system of gameplay much like 4e was a different system to 3e (although while 4e is a different system it IS also less complicated, but I hope you get my point)? I WOULD like to pick up the books somewhere and give them a shot (exalted just felt like a different way of playing 3e and just didn't do it for me and werewolf the forsaken was too complicated for me to even know where to begin (neither got how to create a character nor how to play out a WtF world)).
Also, what are the 'sets' called for 1e and 2e? I remember hearing something about 'the white box' or 'the starter box' or something? Additionally, are they still in print (well actually I already know the answer is no) and can I buy them somewhere (not a yes or no question, more of a 'where' kind of thing)? Plus do they still make the old 3e/3.5e books (this is a yes/no question)?
1e and 2e are, to my knowledge, no longer being printed, is downloading them off the internet illegal or is it the equivalent of freeware? 3e/3.5e I'm pretty sure are not legally free to download.
I've gotten a taste of pathfinder and now that I'm convinced of it, I'm definitely buying my own copy of their books.
Would I be looking at almanac sized books filled to the brim with complex rules for playing the game or is it as complex as 3e was, just simply a different system of gameplay much like 4e was a different system to 3e
Not really. all the rules you need are in 2 books (PHB and DMG) which are not that long, and contain allot of fluff text in them as well.
can I buy them somewhere (not a yes or no question, more of a 'where' kind of thing)?
e-bay, and some hobbie stores still have old stock. Last year I picked up a copy of the origional Ravenloft setting boxed set at a FLGS and they had books just as old there as well.
You know what, all of those "issues" you bring up in the sblock can also apply to 2e. The difference between 2e and 3e was that 3e actually included those thing in the rules from the start while 2e left all kind of things to the DM's discression.
1. Wizards had to prepare spells. With my lack of any tactical thinking, that would not have been so helpful, so I always rolled sorceror instead. Also, you had to get ingredients to cast certain spells, I wasn't sure if that meant as simple as 'have the amount of gold and consider yourself as having the bought the ingredients worth that much', or as complex as 'let's see, I'd like to order 1 eye of newt, two batwings, seven femurs (sp?) and a used shoe' (as in actually looking up specific ingredients to purchase them, DDO simplifies this by just buying the one reagent to cater to all of a spell level). I certainly appreciate how it makes you feel like your character truly is a caster, but the idea was such a pain that thankfully my DM never held me to it.
In 3e, all you needed was a spell component pouch and you were assumed to have every material component you needed, unless it had a listed cost. (Even then, barring substantial things like the giant silver tv screen mirror you need for Scrying, I've yet to meet a DM that worried too much about actually buying costly components and would just deduct from your wallet.) If you didn't like that, you could always play any of the component-less spellcasters (psions, wilders, psychic warriors, ardents, divine minds, lurks, psychic rogues, warlocks, binders, shadowcasters, truenamers, incarnates, soulborns, totemists... you're not lacking for options!).
To me, those always felt more like spellcasters - have you ever actually looked at the material components? Fireball has you build a bomb. Lightning Bolt is a static electricity poke. Scrying involves building a tiny projector and aiming at a screen. Grease literally involves grease. Hypnotic Pattern involves spinning a glowstick like a raver. You're not a wizard - you're MacGyver.
In 2e (barring Player's Option), there were no spontaneous casters - even spontaneous conversion like cleric heals or druid summons didn't exist. You had fewer spells per day, and needed more XP to advance than other classes. Cantrips even didn't exist, at least as we know them. Oh, and they actually spent time occasionally describing verbal and somatic components, which were even sillier than the material components. (This was strongest in Unearthed Arcana, where, for instance, the "flavor" cantrip involved making a "mystic symbol with thumb and forefinger in contact and the other fingers spread, while humming". In other words, the OK sign and "mm-mmm!".
2. Modifiers for just about everything: it's -this dark-, there's this many minuses to your roll, it's -that dark-, this many minuses to your roll, there's -this many trees-, this many minuses to your roll, there's -that many trees-, this many minuses to your roll. When I had this other guy DMing me, he never put it into play (mainly because my party would've benefitted the most out of it) and none of us even knew these rules existed, when -I- DM'ed, he popped these rules out during what was supposed to be a boss fight at night in the forest where they catch him unaware, the boss never had a chance (the guy incidentally was never liked as a player by anyone who DM'ed him, especially for how he liked to exploit noobie DM's).
In 3e, these are ALL -2 or -4, and most follow from common sense. (The only one that I keep forgetting is distance modifiers on Spot, unless huge distances are involved. I think they should have done something like Saga's range increments here instead, but...).
In earlier editions, they were of assorted amounts, often had no rhyme nor reason to them, and were all buried in assorted tables, frequently scattered across multiple books. (As a rule, in 3e, things were formulaic, while in earlier editions if it could be listed in a table, it probably was.)
3. The different rules for disarming, dropping a foe prone, sundering and so on, pathfinder streamlining this really made it thankfully something I'd like to try out. Of course then you had your plusses against a prone enemy, and your enemy's minuses against you.
Do you even want to see what these looked like in earlier editions? At least in 3e, they followed the same general pattern (melee or touch attack, opposed Strength or attack rolls (each with modifiers for size and/or handedness in a logical fashion), apply simple results), except for grappling, which has always been atrocious in every edition. (Pathfinder and Saga handled it best, I think - especially Saga, although it wasn't explained as clearly as it could have been.)
4. Grappling seemed like an interesting concept, giving someone the freedom to do it if he wished, only thing is, it's huge list of rules and how it's conducted turned everyone off. Also, it struck me that grappling could not be used effectively in combat (maybe I misunderstood how it worked), even a monk would be better off fighting without grappling, ALTHOUGH I do remember seeing somewhere additional rules for grappling that would allow you to throttle your opponent, throw him and generally stuff you may call wrestling moves.
This has always been a problem. I'm trying to look up the 1e grappling rules (having a problem from where I am), but believe me, if you think 3e is complex....
5. Mounted combat added its own degree of complexity (even in 4e none of us bothered with it), ride checks for not letting the horse/creature get spooked, stuff about not making full attacks if your mount moves more than five feet (1 square) for melee, full attacks as normal with ranged, concentration checks for spell casting.
I never found this all that complex in 3e - the logic was essentially exactly the same as on foot, just with ride checks to control the mount. I never bothered with it for convenience's sake (hard to move a horse through a dungeon).
However, I cannot attest to what this was like in earlier editions. My only exposure to it directly was playing in a 2e game where the paladin just unlocked his ability to call a steed, and the DM basically said "Yeah, we're not doing that."
6. We never really mastered the concept of travel so we simply skipped those parts or used transitional sequences like 'you're on an airship and it gets attacked' so that there's never really any downtime. There was the distance we'd cover in a day on foot, distance by mount, ability to gather food, ability to endure the weather and even how long we could hold our breath underwater. Even when it came to distance we could cover, our size category mattered, our encumbrance and several other things that affected how fast we actually moved.
That's true of just about any edition, or any tabletop game in general. It's an Order of the Stick joke for a reason. (This is a bit of an issue in 2e but not due to the system's fault: That edition tends to attract so-called "setting nerds" who favor gritty realism, so you may need to track food.) The only setting I've found that tries to get around this is Eberron, through things like its much-maligned lightning rail.
However, there are some issues with what you're talking about in 3e: Your size doesn't matter for overland movement, just your speed. And although they didn't say so explicitly, there were direct methods of converting from your speed to your overland rates. Finally, some of those areas are all very straightforward in their own way (i.e. nearly everyone has a 50% chance of feeding themselves in the wild even without training, and holding your breath - although the rule is buried in an out-of-the-way place - is straightforward).
Again, compare to 2e. Be prepared to wade through tables upon tables upon tables of cross-referencing.
7. Keeping track of time, if we DID travel by the book, how many days did it take us? We were in a town for the last line of quests, how many days passed? How much worth in rations? Does sleeping in the forest in a sleeping bag make much difference than sleeping straight on the dirt floor?
Most of this was generally glossed over in 3e (i.e. unless the weather is really bad, a tent makes no difference - there's no rules difference for sleeping in the rain vs sleeping in an inn). Those that weren't again followed a general pattern, although (as above) the relationships aren't always as clearly explained as they could be. (Look through the SRD on Movement, and you'll see the pattern. Just remember a party travels as slow as its slowest member and you're good to go.)
2e was actually very similar to this. 1e, I think, glossed over it, but I don't recall reading the wilderness adventures book as thoroughly as I should have.
All those things I mentioned we simply avoided completely, and I honestly feel I/we didn't enjoy DnD to the fullest because there was so much to commit to memory.Looking back (all I can do is look back, my damn DM switched to 4e and doesn't want to bother with 3e/3.5e ever again (never tried pathfinder but so long as it's an extension of 3e it fits the bill for him)), I think maybe if we kept notes handy on paper we could've given them (the things stated above) a fair trial and probably would've liked them.
First, that's what a DM screen is for. It's especially needed in earlier editions where everything was answered using five or six tables that didn't necessarily follow a linear pattern.
Second, in 3e and 3.5, it's all formulaic - I tend to do most of the calculations in my head. There are some things that I can't do that way (wealth by level and carrying capacity tend to require Excel - although Saga's method of handling carrying capacity deserves special note as requiring next to no math in and of itself, and it's very similar to 3.5 - and I do need to look at a table for bonus spells (but not bonus power points)). I linked above to a few example formulas. They're just spelled out (and in the case of encumberance, spells, and wealth-by-level, rounded) in table form.
These are NOT all my creations! The lead authors are identified as follows: [TS] Tempest Stormwind, [AR] Andarious Rosethorn, [RT] Radical Taoist, [SN] Sionnis, [DH] DisposableHero_, [SH] Seishi.
[TS] The Pinball Brothers: Large And In Charge (Melee, Lockdown, Charge, Juggling) [TS] Ashardalon Reborn: I Will Swallow Your Soul (Melee, Fear, Negative Levels, AoE, Theme) [AR] "A"-Game Paladin: Play That Funky Music, Knight Boy! (Team Support, Melee, Theme, Single-Class) [RT] Uncanny Trapsmith: Get in, make it look like an accident, get out. (Skillmonkey, Stealth/Scout/Infiltration, Unorthodox Methods, Theme) [AR] Wizsassin: *Everything* is permitted. (Spellcaster, Support, Sneak Attack, Utility) [TS] Phantom Rush: General Gish Gouda. (Gish, Theme, Setting-Specific(Eberron), Early-Entry PrC) [TS] Storm Knight: Another kind of gish. (Melee/"Gish", Theme, Setting-Specific(Eberron), Unorthodox Methods) [TS] Inevitable Nightmare: The weapon you only have to fire once. (Melee, "Unorthodox" Methods (no charging), Reliability) [AR] Captain Constitution: The number one threat to America. (Melee, TOUGHTOUGHTOUGH, Defense, Theme) [AR] Nuker: I casts the spells that makes the peoples fall down! (Spellcaster, damage, blasting, damage) [TS] Dread Lord of the Dead: Let the Reaping Begin! (NPC-only, Variable (combat/casting/leadership), Iconic Villain, Theme) [AR] Heavy Crusader: No Rest. No Mercy. No Matter What. (Melee, Damage (No charging), Variable, Theme). [TS] Gun Fu: It's bullet time (Ranged, THEORETICAL, Twin weapons, Theme) [RT] Face First: We should talk. (Psionic, social, mind-control, info-management) [SN] Chaingun Porcupine: Never Enuff Dakka. (Ranged, Skirmishing, Spike Damage, Incarnum) [RT] Always On Edge: The Mortal Draw deals death. (Melee, Generalist, Dungeoneering, Stunt) [AR] Feral Druid: Real feral taste. Zero druid calories. (Melee, offense, damage, murder) [RT] Rusty!: Man's Best Friend (Sentry, Support, Backup, Rearguard) [RT] The T3 (Tashalatora Triple Threat): My Kung Fu is More Powerful (Hybrid, Flex-Function, Melee, Caster) [RT] The #1 Snoipah: Boom. 'Eadshot. (Caster, Theme, Spike, Trapscout) [AR] Dreamblade: Rest in Pieces. (Melee, Damage, Single-Class, Combo/Momentum) [AR] Evasion Tank: “When fighting angry blind men, is best to stay out of the way.” (Melee, Tank, Unorthodox Methods (attack negation), Theme) [DH] Psycarnum Warrior: ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA Start (Melee, Tank, Psionics, Incarnum, 1337 h4x) [AR] Heavy Weapons Elf: WHO TOUCHED MY BOW? (Ranged, Cohort, Damage, Unorthodox Methods (ranged ToB)) [RT] Gnowhere Gnome: A little man who wasn't there (Caster, Stealth, Single-Class, Elusive) [AR] Uberflank: I got your back. (Melee, support, stunt, teamwork) [TS] Flip the Bird: Everyday I'm shuffling (Ranged, harrier, unorthodox methods (ranged ToB / off-turn movement), support) [DH] Eat Sleep Gank: Real Ultimate Power (Stealth, Assassination, Spike, Magic Versatility) [AR] Slash and Burn: Mind, Body, Blade, Flame / Aspects of a greater whole / which delivers death. (Melee, Theme (flex-style), Damage, Stunt) [RT] Edge of the Light: Cut, Fade to Black (Melee, Defense/Offense, Momentum, Tactical) [RT] Quiet Murder: Cut throats, not corners. (Melee, Stealth, Harrier, Tactical) [TS] Wand Overdrive: Say Hello to my little friends. (Caster, support/artillery/variable, wand specialist) [RT] God Hand: What did the five fingers say to the face? (Melee/Gish, Unarmed, SAD, Theme) [AR] Zero Buff Time Gish: Try to keep up! (Gish, Speed, Movement, Opportunity) [TS] Robo Tackle: I Am Iron Man. (Melee, setting-specific (Eberron), positioning, theme, stunt)
I don't know too much about 2e but 1e wasn't that complicated the way we played it. We basically started with the Moldvay basic book (though either red book basic works fine) and then added additonally stuff like classes, races, spells, and weapons from 1e. So we played a combination of the two most of the time (we did use some of the 1e rules eventually but in hindsight it wasn't really necessary).
The 1e rules by themselves can be confusing and hard to read (Gygax wasn't a great writer) but aren't that hard once you understand what he is saying (and are willing to fill in the gaps of what is said).
AD&D (both versions) require more DM ingenuity in coming up with rulings on the spot w.r.t. 3e. The latter has the advantage that lots of corner cases are covered by the rules, but this DOES NOT mean that the DM is forced to follow them blindly; many a 3.x player makes the mistake of not reading the DMG. And the plethora of rules may seem to imply that the DM is bound to follow them: the DMG is pretty eloquent that this is not the case.
I strongly prefer 3.0 in place of 3.5, since it's somewhat simpler: fewer feats, monsters are not created as PCs, it's less anal when it comes to tactical positioning, the spells definitions are closer to their AD&D equivalents making conversion easier, it has a simpler system of handling weapon sizes, paladins have proper mounts instead of things summoned out of thin air etc.
Core AD&D 1e was in many instances simpler in terms of material than Core 2e: fewer spells, no spheres for clerics (druids were a separate class with a separate spell list,) fixed thief advancement, no specialist spellcasters (except the illusionist which was a class in itself and had exclusive access to some spells) no non-weapon proficiencies, simpler monster entries. In terms of basic material it was also more complete: more classes (monk and assassin), more races (half-orc), more magic items (artifacts in particular), psionics, rules for building castles to name a few. Core AD&D 1e has stricter level limits (which in 2e are so high to be practically meaningless) which makes the selection of race/class combinations quite interesting and strategically relevant, and results in definitely humanocentric campaigns. Unfortunately, AD&D 1e lacked a good editorial hand, with the result that some topics are nebulous at best (e.g. initiative.) Core AD&D2e included basic rules elements from the non-core AD&D 1e books (Unearthed Arcana and Wilderness/Dungeoneer survival guides) so in this respect it was more complete than 1e without the burden of the additional books. Due to the writing style, AD&D 2e seems somewhat watered-down, but the books are very well written and easy to understand. Note that you are better served by the revised monstrous manual (which is a harback) w.r.t. the original 2e monstrous compendium binders (you needed the first and second pack sheets to have a reasonable monster mix.)
Finally, both AD&D 1e and 2e are out of print, and not legally available. However, there is a free retro-clone of 1e, OSRIC, which you can buy from print-on-demand services like LULU; it's essentially a collection of PHB, (part of) DMG and MM all in one volume. Not exactly AD&D1e in terms of contents but close enough to give a very similar play experience. Obviously you might find all three original books for a lower price (and in good conditions: they are designed to last!)
Thanks for all the info and advice. I mainly wanted to try 1e and 2e because from what few sourcebooks I've found of them, they seem like they've really let their creativity run with them, that and I didn't want to miss out on fun spells and perhaps different and darker styled creatures. I also wanted to have a collection of the books at least, will try e-bay to try and get my hands on them.
As for seeing in the dark, I just remembered the section, it was indeed the spotting thing you mentioned tempest_stormwind. I found the page and I'm looking at +5 to the DC to see in moonlight, +10 to the DC to see in starlight, +5 to your spot check if you have low light vision or dark vision to negate the moonlight DC, +5 specifically if you have low light vision to negate half the moonlight DC and dark vision to entirely negate the +10 moonlight DC and that's IF you can see that far. Then you have your +/- 4 modifiers based on size and +/- 5 modifier based on constrast and +5 for a creature that's not moving.
Also, psion aside, I have never heard of those classes you mentioned tempest_stormwind except in 4e. While I know they had a 3e form, I wouldn't even know where to look, there are sourcebooks aplenty, and here's the part that really bugs me: I really like the spells and abilities of both psionics and magic, but there are additional spells/abilities in so many sourcebooks that if I wanted to pick and choose fun powers I'd have to wade endlessly through numerous books. I heard there was a book called 'tome and blood' that had a list of arcane spells, and another called 'complete arcane' that had even MORE spells to go through and a book of vile darkness (really nice book) and a book of exalted deeds BOTH with a lot of spells to choose from, how does one go through all of that? I really wish I'd known more about the game as it came out, would've been able to familiarize myself with the spells and abilities of one book, then after I'd felt like I'd gotten comfortable could move on and get the other books as they came out, now there's a huge pile of books to select from.
I'm going to go through the classes you mentioned (if I can find them) to see what they're capable of. One of the things I enjoyed about the arcane spell list though was all the fun additional flavorful spells like Nystul's magic aura, Ventriloquism, endure elements, continual flame, animate rope and other things that while minorly useful, the DM would never give us a situation where these things were necessary, but they were fun having, using and added to the flavor of what a wizard was capable of, not just simply combat spells. Are the other classes you mentioned also capable of flavor powers that aren't necessarily combat oriented? It might sound petty, but flavor spells and powers really bring special classes to life for me to be honest.
Thanks for all the info and advice. I mainly wanted to try 1e and 2e because from what few sourcebooks I've found of them, they seem like they've really let their creativity run with them, that and I didn't want to miss out on fun spells and perhaps different and darker styled creatures. I also wanted to have a collection of the books at least, will try e-bay to try and get my hands on them.
As for seeing in the dark, I just remembered the section, it was indeed the spotting thing you mentioned tempest_stormwind. I found the page and I'm looking at +5 to the DC to see in moonlight, +10 to the DC to see in starlight, +5 to your spot check if you have low light vision or dark vision to negate the moonlight DC, +5 specifically if you have low light vision to negate half the moonlight DC and dark vision to entirely negate the +10 moonlight DC and that's IF you can see that far. Then you have your +/- 4 modifiers based on size and +/- 5 modifier based on constrast and +5 for a creature that's not moving.
And that's everything you'll need to know except for the distance penalties.
For the record, in 2e, you had "infravision" instead of darkvision. This was supposed to let you see heat, and thus see in the dark. The problem was, there were no true hard rules as to how heat translated into light (there's loose guidelines which tend to work well in the abstract, but make it difficult to adjucate things like "I heat up a coin in my hand and throw it down the hallway. How much can I see?"). And that sets aside a whole host of other problems (that was written by Sean K. Reynolds, a name that should be familiar).
Also, psion aside, I have never heard of those classes you mentioned tempest_stormwind except in 4e. While I know they had a 3e form, I wouldn't even know where to look, there are sourcebooks aplenty, and here's the part that really bugs me: I really like the spells and abilities of both psionics and magic, but there are additional spells/abilities in so many sourcebooks that if I wanted to pick and choose fun powers I'd have to wade endlessly through numerous books.
The warlock is in Complete Arcane. Its magic takes the form of spell-like abilities (no components, except here you need to gesture) usable at will. -Warlock: You know the fluff; it's unchanged in 4e. Capable of using basic magical effects at will, with a signature "eldritch blast" ray attack. At higher levels tends to lag a bit behind others, but has a few tricks up its sleeve.
The psionic classes are in the Expanded Psionics Handbook, which is also included on d20SRD.org. A few others were included in The Mind's Eye (online articles) and Complete Psionic. Psionics, in general, is similar to spellcasting, except with power points (think MP) and the ability to "augment" powers (so instead of learning, say, Charm Person and Charm Monster, a telepath would learn Psionic Charm, and pour more power points into it if he wanted to charm a monster). -Psion: Pure master of mental power. They are the "wizard" of psionics, with a large array of powers to call forth, except they are forced to specialize. -Wilder: Raw psionic power unleashed. They are the "sorcerer" of psionics, with a signature Wild Surge ability to make their few powers very strong. -Psychic Warrior: Blending martial prowess and psionic augmentation. Imagine a bard with buff spells, fighter proficiencies, and fighter feats and you're pretty close to what these are. -Soulknife: Creates weapons from his will. Doesn't manifest powers, but can benefit from passive psionics. (A very interesting idea but a bit poorly implemented.) -Psychic Rogue: What the psychic warrior is to combat, the psychic rogue is to stealth and expertise. There's little else to be said here; it's awesome, but nondescript. -Ardent: Embodies a philosophical principle. The "cleric" of psionics, manifests from a power list build from philsophical "mantles" that you choose. (Imagine if the cleric's basic spell list was split up entirely into the existing domains, but you could pick more than two domains.) A fine, versatile class. -Divine Mind: No one ever admits this exists; it's a thematic and mechanical failure that should be taken out behind the woodshed and shot. -Lurk: Another stealthy psionic class, less like the rogue and more like the assassin. Capable of augmenting its physical attacks as well, and quite capable of crippling targets that it can catch unaware.
The pact, shadow, and truename classes are alternative systems presented in the Tome of Magic. -Binder: Calls upon and binds mysterious spirits to his soul. Depending on which "vestiges" you bind on a given day, the binder shifts its role around. (Binding some spirits gives you speaking prowess and charisma, while others give you swordsmanship, and others give you limited spells or a breath weapon, and so on.) Here's a few example vestiges to show you how they're presented (although only Astaroth really fits with the rest; he would have fit right in with the rest of the book.). -Shadowcaster: Manipulates shadow and perception in a sort of "affinity magic" style. Interesting because its magic progresses in type, changing from spells to spell-like abilities to supernatural abilities as it gains experience. -Truenamer: In theory, knowing the language from which reality itself is woven allows you to alter that reality with a word. In practice, the class itself barely works.
The meldshaper classes were from Magic of Incarnum. Incarnum uses your item slots as a resource, and gives you a pool of points (essentia) to shift around between different abilities more or less at will. (If you have claws shaped on your hands, and need to fight, then shift essentia there from your feet, since you probably won't be running or flying right now, but you can shift it back next round when you need to flee). -Incarnate: Embodies an alignment principle, and relies heavily on their incarnum abilities for offense and defense. Their melds tend to take the form of equipment. -Soulborn: The "paladin' of incarnum, blends melding and martial prowess. Melds like an incarnate. -Totemist: Embodies magical beasts, and can take on their signature magical attacks and natural weapons. Melds generally take the form of mask-like equipment, but can also directly transform the body.
The interesting bit is that unlike sorcerers and wizards, or clerics and druids (ESPECIALLY druids), these systems are more or less entirely self-contained. Psionics was the only one that had more than one book for it (and Complete Psionic was generally disliked by the community), and psionics and the warlock were the only ones that had "spells" (or equivalent) show up in other books at all. Thus, if you want to play a binder (for instance), all you'd ever need is one more book, period. It would have your class, your entire magic system, every feat related to it, and your complete spell list for the entire edition, all between one set of covers.
(Actually, that's not entirely accurate. There's usually a smattering of small add-ons from web articles, and the binder proved so popular that one (and only one) vestige appeared in another book. But the point still holds.)
Compare to magic users. Half the PHB is dedicated to spells. The Spell Compendium is nothing but spells. There are new spells in every sourcebook I've ever read, with the single exception of the Tome of Battle (which by and large uses existing mechanics, by the way). I can see where you're coming from here, but the argument is lessened for those alternatives.
I heard there was a book called 'tome and blood' that had a list of arcane spells, and another called 'complete arcane' that had even MORE spells to go through and a book of vile darkness (really nice book) and a book of exalted deeds BOTH with a lot of spells to choose from, how does one go through all of that? I really wish I'd known more about the game as it came out, would've been able to familiarize myself with the spells and abilities of one book, then after I'd felt like I'd gotten comfortable could move on and get the other books as they came out, now there's a huge pile of books to select from.
Well, Tome and Blood was a third edition book, while Complete Arcane was the 3.5 "update" of that book, so that's not the best example. Also, calling the Books of Vile Darkness and Exalted Deeds "good" is generally a no-no (BoVD is 3e and didn't balance-check its stuff, BoED is cheese on a stick with even less balance checking, and that doesn't even touch on their moral/ethical discussions. BoED claims that Masochist von Genocide is a paladin and that poison made from poaching good creatures is less evil than poison from a snake.)
This problem is even worse for druids, since every monster they could wild shape into is a potential player resource. Imagine adding the monster manuals to that list of books and you'll see why it's daunting.
Generally, one doesn't need to go too far outside core for the strongest spells. Generally, core, Spell Compendium, and whatever book you're fetching your (probably broken) prestige classes from give you more than enough options. Similarly, you don't need to use all the best spells; most of us generally find a few we really like and pack other utility spells to round things out.
I'm going to go through the classes you mentioned (if I can find them) to see what they're capable of. One of the things I enjoyed about the arcane spell list though was all the fun additional flavorful spells like Nystul's magic aura, Ventriloquism, endure elements, continual flame, animate rope and other things that while minorly useful, the DM would never give us a situation where these things were necessary, but they were fun having, using and added to the flavor of what a wizard was capable of, not just simply combat spells. Are the other classes you mentioned also capable of flavor powers that aren't necessarily combat oriented? It might sound petty, but flavor spells and powers really bring special classes to life for me to be honest.
In general, 3.5 magical classes are all capable of this sort of thing:
Check the list of psionic powers. Mindlink, Minor Creation, Control Flames, Precognition, Skate, Object Reading, Sensitivity to Psychic Impressions, Mind Seed, Time Hop, Time Regression, Synesthete, and Quintessence all come to mind immediately, and I know there are better choices out there.
Several warlock invocations are dripping with fluff and are most useful out of combat, although since warlocks know so few of them, nearly all of them DO have a combat application. (Even those tend to drip with fluff. The one that gives you a boost on Spellcraft and Knowledge? Otherworldly Whispers. Invisibility? Walk Unseen. See in darkness? Devil's Sight. Fly? Fell Flight. Turn into a swarm of batlike shadows... oh, wait, that's fun enough on its own (albeit a poor choice due to bad implementation). Likewise, detach your hand or your eye to act at a distance, forge a glaive of hellfire, speak a word of the Dark Speech to cause an object to break...)
The binder themes every single vestige with a lot of fluff, up to and including physical changes on your body and a direct roleplay "influence" if you failed to successfully assert dominance when you made the pact. Amon, the Void before the Altar, causes you to grow horns, grants you devil-like sight, and the ability to breathe fire. Naberius, the Grinning Hound, turns your tongue black, grants you knowledge of obscure science and art, and great prowess at speaking, in exchange for requiring you to assert social dominance and speak at every reasonable opportunity. And so on. These abilities aren't always useful for combat, but they all directly tie in to the vestige's legend, lore, and personality, such as it is. While all of the seals and most of of the names are drawn from Ars Goetia (some depictions and stories are even retained - Buer and Agares almost look identical to their classical selves and the legend of Dantalion is pretty close to the source, for instance - but the majority were rewritten for D&D), many are drawn from D&D's own history and lore - you can forge pacts with Acererak (the bad guy from The Tomb of Horrors), Karsus (the mage responsible for the death of the first Mystra and the Fall of Netheril in Forgotten Realms history), Tenebrous (the deity form of Orcus), Kas (Vecna of Greyhawk's traitorous vampire lieutenant, i.e. "The Sword of Kas"), Geryon (a former Lord of Hell in 1e that was deposed and "forgotten" during an edition changeover) and Ashardalon (the demon dragon that you may be familiar with from 4e, but who first appeared in the backstory to the very first 3e published adventure), among others. Seriously, look through the Binder Handbook and you'll see what I mean from a mechanical sense.
Most of the incarnum melds grant you some minor skill check bonuses, which are of varying use (and often conflict with the theme: There's nothing terribly Lawful about tying a damn good knot), but do provide utility. Similarly, since it's trivially simple to shape a meld, and you have plenty of space for them, you can often shape one or two utility melds and just shift essentia there as you see fit. Meanwhile, for flavor, hoo boy. It's a mixed bag (I think the totemist is a high point), but when it succeeds, it really succeeds.
These are NOT all my creations! The lead authors are identified as follows: [TS] Tempest Stormwind, [AR] Andarious Rosethorn, [RT] Radical Taoist, [SN] Sionnis, [DH] DisposableHero_, [SH] Seishi.
[TS] The Pinball Brothers: Large And In Charge (Melee, Lockdown, Charge, Juggling) [TS] Ashardalon Reborn: I Will Swallow Your Soul (Melee, Fear, Negative Levels, AoE, Theme) [AR] "A"-Game Paladin: Play That Funky Music, Knight Boy! (Team Support, Melee, Theme, Single-Class) [RT] Uncanny Trapsmith: Get in, make it look like an accident, get out. (Skillmonkey, Stealth/Scout/Infiltration, Unorthodox Methods, Theme) [AR] Wizsassin: *Everything* is permitted. (Spellcaster, Support, Sneak Attack, Utility) [TS] Phantom Rush: General Gish Gouda. (Gish, Theme, Setting-Specific(Eberron), Early-Entry PrC) [TS] Storm Knight: Another kind of gish. (Melee/"Gish", Theme, Setting-Specific(Eberron), Unorthodox Methods) [TS] Inevitable Nightmare: The weapon you only have to fire once. (Melee, "Unorthodox" Methods (no charging), Reliability) [AR] Captain Constitution: The number one threat to America. (Melee, TOUGHTOUGHTOUGH, Defense, Theme) [AR] Nuker: I casts the spells that makes the peoples fall down! (Spellcaster, damage, blasting, damage) [TS] Dread Lord of the Dead: Let the Reaping Begin! (NPC-only, Variable (combat/casting/leadership), Iconic Villain, Theme) [AR] Heavy Crusader: No Rest. No Mercy. No Matter What. (Melee, Damage (No charging), Variable, Theme). [TS] Gun Fu: It's bullet time (Ranged, THEORETICAL, Twin weapons, Theme) [RT] Face First: We should talk. (Psionic, social, mind-control, info-management) [SN] Chaingun Porcupine: Never Enuff Dakka. (Ranged, Skirmishing, Spike Damage, Incarnum) [RT] Always On Edge: The Mortal Draw deals death. (Melee, Generalist, Dungeoneering, Stunt) [AR] Feral Druid: Real feral taste. Zero druid calories. (Melee, offense, damage, murder) [RT] Rusty!: Man's Best Friend (Sentry, Support, Backup, Rearguard) [RT] The T3 (Tashalatora Triple Threat): My Kung Fu is More Powerful (Hybrid, Flex-Function, Melee, Caster) [RT] The #1 Snoipah: Boom. 'Eadshot. (Caster, Theme, Spike, Trapscout) [AR] Dreamblade: Rest in Pieces. (Melee, Damage, Single-Class, Combo/Momentum) [AR] Evasion Tank: “When fighting angry blind men, is best to stay out of the way.” (Melee, Tank, Unorthodox Methods (attack negation), Theme) [DH] Psycarnum Warrior: ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA Start (Melee, Tank, Psionics, Incarnum, 1337 h4x) [AR] Heavy Weapons Elf: WHO TOUCHED MY BOW? (Ranged, Cohort, Damage, Unorthodox Methods (ranged ToB)) [RT] Gnowhere Gnome: A little man who wasn't there (Caster, Stealth, Single-Class, Elusive) [AR] Uberflank: I got your back. (Melee, support, stunt, teamwork) [TS] Flip the Bird: Everyday I'm shuffling (Ranged, harrier, unorthodox methods (ranged ToB / off-turn movement), support) [DH] Eat Sleep Gank: Real Ultimate Power (Stealth, Assassination, Spike, Magic Versatility) [AR] Slash and Burn: Mind, Body, Blade, Flame / Aspects of a greater whole / which delivers death. (Melee, Theme (flex-style), Damage, Stunt) [RT] Edge of the Light: Cut, Fade to Black (Melee, Defense/Offense, Momentum, Tactical) [RT] Quiet Murder: Cut throats, not corners. (Melee, Stealth, Harrier, Tactical) [TS] Wand Overdrive: Say Hello to my little friends. (Caster, support/artillery/variable, wand specialist) [RT] God Hand: What did the five fingers say to the face? (Melee/Gish, Unarmed, SAD, Theme) [AR] Zero Buff Time Gish: Try to keep up! (Gish, Speed, Movement, Opportunity) [TS] Robo Tackle: I Am Iron Man. (Melee, setting-specific (Eberron), positioning, theme, stunt)
This was for a long time a concept at the heart of D&D. It was borrowed primarily from the writings of Jack Vance and is thus referred to as Vancian spellcasting. Casters memorize a limited selection of spells and when they are cast the magic that is stored in memory is utterly forgotten and have to be re-memorized. There are a lot of different ways in which spellcasting COULD be handled, but this is how D&D approached it until 4th Ed. It has its good and bad points but if nothing else provides a means to control the power and utility of spellcasters at a given level.
As far as the components is concerned I might even go so far as to say that MOST people ignored material component except those with a significant expense or difficulty to obtain since these were often included as a means to prevent over-use of certain spells. 3E just made that the rule. However, that said there CAN be a great deal of interesting gaming provided just by casters needing to obtain some of those odd and rare components.
2. Modifiers for just about everything:
This is perhaps the biggest downside to 3E. By reducing dang near everything to a d20 roll the bulk of the game winds up being about how you manage to modify that roll - so you get modifiers out the wazoo. Naturally, some DM's will waive a tremendous amount of modifiers just to save themselves the annoyance. But they also can be much more familiar with modifiers and so when they become players it's only sensible that they put those modifiers to their advantage, especially when faced with a DM who does waive a lot of modifiers.
One thing you basically have to accept about D&D - ANY version of D&D - is that there is a LOT of reading and copius amounts of information to absorb. IMO, it was a mistake on the part of 3E to actually embrace this "system mastery" as a design element, as if that is where EVERYONE found the fun in the game. But there's no denying that to one extent or another it is part of nearly every version of D&D simply because D&D is so large and complex. The exception would be OD&D where the systems are all highly simplistic and it embraces the idea that rather than detailed rules the game is much more reliant upon the imagination and creativity of the participants.
Now, there's never been a "competency test" for D&D rules knowledge that you have to pass before you can play - but it IS generally expected that EVERYONE read the rules and when they're done reading to read them again and again. The DM especially needs to endeavor to be at least as knowledgable about the rules as their players - even about the rules they don't use.
4. Grappling seemed like an interesting concept, giving someone the freedom to do it if he wished, only thing is, it's huge list of rules and how it's conducted turned everyone off.
1E grappling gets a very bad rap - but IMO it's utterly undeserved. Generally the issue is that nobody even READS grappling rules until they decide on the spur of the moment that they want to try it - and then they're not playing, they're interrupting the game to learn new rules. 1E grappling is ONE HALF OF A PAGE including tables. That is not complicated. If you actually read and understand how it works before you need to use it then it's actually easy.
Something else to remember about grappling though - there is a REASON why it is generally not preferable to using weapons. I'll just that statement stand as-is.
5. Mounted combat added its own degree of complexity
D&D rules tend to focus most on those areas where most players are going to be spending most of their time. If you find yourself playing or running a game where there is a lot more mounted combat then you either get better at using the existing rules or you make rules of your own that work better for you. Once upon a time nearly EVERYONE who played D&D understood that it wasn't about finding and mastering only existing rules - you make the game what YOU want it to be because ultimately nobody is reading your mind or interviewing you at length to determine what you want and need and then giving it to you.
6. We never really mastered the concept of travel so we simply skipped those parts or used transitional sequences
Again, you use what you want and need and disregard what you don't. A lot of people don't consider travelling from A to B as a signficant part of the adventure, but just what happens when you get there. Although I think that overlooks a huge amount of potential adventuring there's nothing inherently wrong with it if you are more interested in the dungeon.
7. Keeping track of time, if we DID travel by the book, how many days did it take us? We were in a town for the last line of quests, how many days passed? How much worth in rations? Does sleeping in the forest in a sleeping bag make much difference than sleeping straight on the dirt floor?
All just as easily handwaved as noted in detail if you find the detailed approach cumbersome.
Is 1e/2e complicated to learn?
No more so really than any other version. But there are a few things you need to understand about 1e/2E. First is that they were not written to wholeheartedly embrace miniatures on a grid. These are versions that still owe a lot to their origins of tabletop wargaming rules. 2E less so than 1E but then 2E lost a certain something in what it gave up. Both however assume that you are willing and able to change the game to suit your own needs. 1E initiative is truly arcane. While it can and does work it is far more likely to simply be in your way. Unless you really want to embrace the spirit of your Geek ancestors game design has moved on to better places. Either obtain A.D.D.I.C.T. which lays it out in a more useable fashion, or dump it and go with whatever simpler method you like.
Finally, in general both the 1E and 2E books are not well organized for finding information. You get used to it (and again, you use what you need and overlook the rest) but for those not especially well versed in older RPG's it can be a bit of an obstacle to learning the system. The system overall IS simpler - much simpler - than 3E, it's more that the elements that make up the system are spread around a lot. It looks piecemeal because that's how it was assembled (bits and pieces from here and there that were added to or modified the older system) but once you've got the parts you want/need it plays much simpler and faster.
Also, what are the 'sets' called for 1e and 2e? I remember hearing something about 'the white box' or 'the starter box' or something?
The basic elements of eiither 1E or 2E are made up of a Players Handbook, a Dungeon Masters Guide, and a Monster Manual. That's it. Anything else is optional. In the case of 2E it's an overwhelming amount of optional material and it's not all gold and pearls.
None of the older editions are in print but 1E, 2E and 3E (core books in particular) are all available from secondary sources (used bookstores or online resellers). OD&D (that would be the "white box" you heard of) is probably going to be expensive because it is now somewhat rare and has value as a collectable. 3E books you can still actually get as new but I just bought a new set of 1E core books myself which are in excellent condition.
I've gotten a taste of pathfinder and now that I'm convinced of it, I'm definitely buying my own copy of their books.
I've not played Pathfinder but I finally went out a couple days ago and bought the Core Rulebook because I really wanted to see how they handled things. Just barely started reading through it and comparing it to 3E.
Old School: It ain't what you play - it's how you play it.
My 1E Project: http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/Building%20D&D/buildingdnd.htm
Thanks all, the info and advice has been really enlightening.
Thank you tempest_stormwind, that part about the warlock invocations and the fluff behind them had me tingling with excitement, I'm certainly fishing it up, and will give a deeper look to the psionic classes. If the warlock invocations you mentioned had me tingling, the stuff you mentioned about the binder had me jumping up and down, that's some really good stuff, especially in the way it visibly affects your character. I'm definitely giving the classes in the expanded psionics handbook and the complete arcane book a good reading!
Thank you man_in_the_funny_hat, I was hoping for some good indepth information on 1e/2e. I suppose they sound pretty interesting but perhaps not as well built and mathematized (that a word?) as 3e. I'll try and get them if at least for collection's sake.
Overall I honestly gave 4e a shot, and while it has many good points, I just don't feel the flavor. I certainly think 4e is a nice system, if at least making fighters/rogues/melee-classes-in-general more interesting in what they can do, but I feel the casters have lost their flavor. Mechanics has never been an issue for me, so to be honest, long live 3e and all it's children (3.5 and pathfinder).
