D&D Edition Wars

[mercerxiv]

Dam, that's an old thread.
As someone who didn't do toouch tabletop (maybe a dozen games?) and comes from CRPGs, I didn't like 5e even 5 years ago. Now that they have come out with the whole "no more races, no more half-" etc. it was just a confirmation of my earlier stance that 5e is dog **** and should not be even considered DnD.
I have some familiarity with AD&D2e, and some with 3.5e. Out of the 2 I actually quite liked my limited experience with AD&D, 3.5 (of that was the one used NWN games) was a bit much and not to my liking. I did appreciate BG2EE homebrewing a backwards port of blackguard kit to the AD&D ruleset, but that's about it. In CRPG I like both the ruleset that was used in original BG1&2, or Pf1e they use in Pf games. Tabletop Ibwould probably only consider playing those 2 and with preference for AD&D, because I feel like pf may get too technical for sitting at the table.

[UltraFan123]

I will admit that the reason why I like 3.5 edition/Pathfinder 1st edition is mostly bias since that's the ruleset I'm most familiar with and the one that makes you feel more "powerful" at max level. My exposure to 2nd AD&D was mainly Planescape Torment, I have yet to play the OG Baldur's Gate games.

From what I remember, a reason for why Gygax wasn't a big fan of 3rd edition was because it was no longer gritty adventuring in a fantasy world but "capeshit" where adventurers were overpowered superheroes even at mid-level.

[WaterMage]

From what I remember, a reason for why Gygax wasn't a big fan of 3rd edition was because it was no longer gritty adventuring in a fantasy world but "capeshit" where adventurers were overpowered superheroes even at mid-level.

Yep. And you reach mid and high levels much faster than AD&D. And high levels too. Mages had fewer spell slots, didn't get spells on level up, had to find scrolls and roll to learn them, had at best d4+1 hp per level, not unlimited con mod(and d6 in pf1e), any damage and you couldn't cast a spell, no concentration checks, enemy SR became a much less serious problem, and having a very high spell DC was much easier. The risks of some spells like summon elementals got removed and note, in TT you can't quickload.

But what I really disliked about 3.5e is that they took away racial restrictions. For example, dwarves in AD&D can't be arcane casters. In 3.5e can. It was the very first step towards "your race is your skin" from the most recent edition. And the fact that dwarves were unable to resist magic made them persecuted in some places like Glantri in Mystara. Only humans could be paladins in AD&D. It made each race more distinct. I would prefer if 3.5e had made a unique runesmith "magical" class for dwarves rather than allowing them to be wizards. Gnomes in AD&D who become mages automatically become illusionists per base rules(some optional supplements allowed them as artificers)

[UltraFan123]

I would prefer if 3.5e had made a unique runesmith "magical" class for dwarves rather than allowing them to be wizards. Gnomes in AD&D who become mages automatically become illusionists.

I think that Eberron offered a decent solution in the form of the artificer class. I would think that a good fantasy setting would make it so that only dwarves could be artificers.

[WaterMage]

I would prefer if 3.5e had made a unique runesmith "magical" class for dwarves rather than allowing them to be wizards. Gnomes in AD&D who become mages automatically become illusionists.

I think that Eberron offered a decent solution in the form of the artificer class. I would think that a good fantasy setting would make it so that only dwarves could be artificers.

In warhammer fantasy, only dwarfs can be runesmiths.

BTW, in tsr02163 - Player's Option - Spells & Magic, there are Artificers. Only Humans and Gnomes could be one.

[rusty_shackleford]

Eventually everyone with taste realizes it all peaked with AD&D 2E.

[WaterMage]

Eventually everyone with taste realizes it all peaked with AD&D 2E.

I was a huge 3.5e fanboy when first introduced to RPG. Now I realize. TSR > WoTC. 3.5e was not bad but started the snowball that became the avalanche of decline.

[Cipher]

Eventually everyone with taste realizes it all peaked with AD&D 2E.

I've said this before and I will say it again. D&D died with TSR. WotC's 'dragon game" is not D&D has never been D&D. If you want real D&D play it, it's already there. And yes, AD&D 2E is my favorite. But, if for whatever reason you want a more current game with the similar feel, get ACKS II.

[rusty_shackleford]

Eventually everyone with taste realizes it all peaked with AD&D 2E.

As to why not AD&D:
2E incorporates most of the good changes that were already available in various 1E supplements, while also having a vast array of very good supplements to pick from.

I also agree with this assessment about 1st being better than 2nd for similar reasons. I dislike how 2nd removed the focus on equipment management and encumbrance. It always felt stupid to play the game and people were pulling out a ton of equipment like they had a cart behind them.

"lets see... halfling thief is carrying 15 torches, a sack of grain for 4 weeks, a barrel of mead, a sack of caltrips and trap parts, 5 throwing daggers, two short swords, a crossbow and 30 bolts, 200 ft of ****, etc..." all while crawling through tight corridors in a dark dungeon... oh, and they can sneak in shadows, not making a sound, and are alert and ready to fight on any ambush...

2E always had encumbrance, it's an optional rule.

[WaterMage]

About video game adaptations, WoTC would NEVER license AD&D, but we could get a CRPG adaptation of retroclones. Hyperborea, Shadowdark, LotFP, Dark Dungeons, and Machinations of the Space Princess. So sad that game devs are making The Dragon's Demand in PF2e, that if OwlCat ever makes another CRPG outside of the Warhammer verse, they will opt for their stupid Rogue Trader rules, more bloated than epic 3.5e and more gamey than 4e, and no one is adapting retroclones in CRPG format...

In tabletop, I just don't see the point of playing stuff like D&D 4e and PF2e. But why play a generic WoW clone: tabletop edition when you can play WoW? Is it the same stuff—endless cooldown managing and enemies that can soak a million meteors in their faces but no need to gather a group and find a DM.

[DemoGraph]

Eventually everyone with taste realizes it all peaked with AD&D 2E.

You've misspelled ACKS.
THAC0 is cancer.

[Unhelpful Contrarian]

So sad that game devs are making The Dragon's Demand in PF2e, that if OwlCat ever makes another CRPG outside of the Warhammer verse, they will opt for their stupid Rogue Trader rules, more bloated than epic 3.5e and more gamey than 4e, and no one is adapting retroclones in CRPG format...

Unfortunately if Owlcat would ever return to making another Pathfinder ( I would guess a remake of Pathfinder:Kingmaker)
they would use Pathfinder 2nd Edition since Pazio has made all future games post WOTR 2nd Edition.

[WaterMage]

Unfortunately if Owlcat would ever return to making another Pathfinder ( I would guess a remake of Pathfinder:Kingmaker)
they would use Pathfinder 2nd Edition since Pazio has made all future games post WOTR 2nd Edition.

I know. Paizo would mandate a downgrade. About a remake for kingmaker, who would pay for kingmaker with a mandated downgrade into a much worse ruleset? Would be as stupid as trying to sell NWN1/2 in D&D 4e.

My point is that OwlCat could seek to adapt an retroclone. Like hyperborea



Hyperborea = Conan + AD&D. The lv cap is 12 so no late kingmaker/wotr bloat but still strong characters.

Much better than generic wow clone : tabletop edition

PS : If OwlCat remakes kingmaker in pf2e, I'm quite sure. Game journos would love. Most PFKM would hate.

[J1M]

I don't mind that humans have a different multi-classing system, but I don't really like the way the classes work in AD&D. Seems too heavily weighted towards everyone being some kind of Figheter/Cleric/Wizard. (Largely due to how XP works, I think.)

[Demonic Fate]

Eventually everyone with taste realizes it all peaked with AD&D 2E.

You've misspelled ACKS.
THAC0 is cancer.

Both of the following statements are true:

- AD&D had plenty of crufty, awkward, and inconsistent rules that mainly got in the way of typical games for no good reason

- AD&D had far, far more soul than 3E and successors

If you asked me for an edition to play with a beginner, 14-year-old DM and equally newb players (aka the modal D&D experience), I'll pick 3E/5E hands down, maybe even 4E. Very few sharp corners, we'll probably have a blast dungeon crawling and playing it like tabletop Diablo, essentially.

If I can have a creative and quick-thinking DM and 2-3 well-meaning roleplayers... well I wouldn't pick D&D at all to be honest, but if I had to pick an edition it would likely be 2E.

[JRR]

Any OFFICIAL version of D&D after first edition is not worth the ink it took me to type this.

[DemoGraph]

If I can have a creative and quick-thinking DM and 2-3 well-meaning roleplayers... well I wouldn't pick D&D at all to be honest

For fantasy I'd pick Ars Magica.

[Xenich]

Eventually everyone with taste realizes it all peaked with AD&D 2E.

You've misspelled ACKS.
THAC0 is cancer.

Both of the following statements are true:

- AD&D had plenty of crufty, awkward, and inconsistent rules that mainly got in the way of typical games for no good reason

- AD&D had far, far more soul than 3E and successors

If you asked me for an edition to play with a beginner, 14-year-old DM and equally newb players (aka the modal D&D experience), I'll pick 3E/5E hands down, maybe even 4E. Very few sharp corners, we'll probably have a blast dungeon crawling and playing it like tabletop Diablo, essentially.

If I can have a creative and quick-thinking DM and 2-3 well-meaning roleplayers... well I wouldn't pick D&D at all to be honest, but if I had to pick an edition it would likely be 2E.

Concerning the highlighted, can you give any examples?

[Demonic Fate]

You've misspelled ACKS.
THAC0 is cancer.

Both of the following statements are true:

- AD&D had plenty of crufty, awkward, and inconsistent rules that mainly got in the way of typical games for no good reason

- AD&D had far, far more soul than 3E and successors

If you asked me for an edition to play with a beginner, 14-year-old DM and equally newb players (aka the modal D&D experience), I'll pick 3E/5E hands down, maybe even 4E. Very few sharp corners, we'll probably have a blast dungeon crawling and playing it like tabletop Diablo, essentially.

If I can have a creative and quick-thinking DM and 2-3 well-meaning roleplayers... well I wouldn't pick D&D at all to be honest, but if I had to pick an edition it would likely be 2E.

Concerning the highlighted, can you give any examples?

Here is one of my favourites - shooting into melee:

https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Missile_ ... to_a_Melee

This is classic late 80s / early 90s RPG writing, a lot of them have this sort of rules all over. The game designer thinks about a scenario in simulation terms, and comes up with a clever rule that emulates "what would happen" in statistical terms. It's cool to read and to imagine in your head, and then you actually play it.

- The game grinds to a halt as the DM figures out which targets are involved, calculates their total scores (might need to go look up the scores by size), and looks for a die to roll that matches the relative chances indicated by the formula, or calculates the percent values to use a d100.

- After all of that, the player will almost always go "wait, I have a 60% chance to hit a friendly? nevermind, I don't shoot". Or worse, he goes #yolo and shoots his buddy, causing much hilarity but not exactly living up to the "heroic party of adventurers" theme that you're supposed to be playing. (Unless the shooter was a lolgnome or something I guess.)

- Best of all, it's entirely random. You're a level 16 ranger and make Robin Hood look like the ICE shooter? Too bad, roll a die like a level 1 noob.

- No, wait, the best thing is actually that this isn't a niche corner case rule - if you have an archer and a melee guy in the party, this rule will come up in virtually every single fight.

What's the 3E rule for shooting in melee? -4 penalty to the attack, unless your target is Huge. So simple I didn't even have to look it up, and I haven't played 3E in twenty years. It gives you enough of a penalty that you'll look for other targets if possible, but not so punishing that you'd have to be an idiot to shoot. Yeah it's a bit unrealistic that you don't actually risk hitting your buddy, but turns out that while friendly fire from a wizard's big 1/day Fireball can be funny and memorable, risking friendly fire on every single attack your archer is more annoying than anything.

That's what game designers learned after the 90s - you write rules by thinking and testing how they will actually play, not just by writing down what you find fun. Writing down what you find fun leads to **** that nobody ever uses like the wrestling rules.

[rusty_shackleford]

Both of the following statements are true:

- AD&D had plenty of crufty, awkward, and inconsistent rules that mainly got in the way of typical games for no good reason

- AD&D had far, far more soul than 3E and successors

If you asked me for an edition to play with a beginner, 14-year-old DM and equally newb players (aka the modal D&D experience), I'll pick 3E/5E hands down, maybe even 4E. Very few sharp corners, we'll probably have a blast dungeon crawling and playing it like tabletop Diablo, essentially.

If I can have a creative and quick-thinking DM and 2-3 well-meaning roleplayers... well I wouldn't pick D&D at all to be honest, but if I had to pick an edition it would likely be 2E.

Concerning the highlighted, can you give any examples?

Here is one of my favourites - shooting into melee:

https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Missile_ ... to_a_Melee

This is classic late 80s / early 90s RPG writing, a lot of them have this sort of rules all over. The game designer thinks about a scenario in simulation terms, and comes up with a clever rule that emulates "what would happen" in statistical terms. It's cool to read and to imagine in your head, and then you actually play it.

- The game grinds to a halt as the DM figures out which targets are involved, calculates their total scores (might need to go look up the scores by size), and looks for a die to roll that matches the relative chances indicated by the formula, or calculates the percent values to use a d100.

- After all of that, the player will almost always go "wait, I have a 60% chance to hit a friendly? nevermind, I don't shoot". Or worse, he goes #yolo and shoots his buddy, causing much hilarity but not exactly living up to the "heroic party of adventurers" theme that you're supposed to be playing. (Unless the shooter was a lolgnome or something I guess.)

- Best of all, it's entirely random. You're a level 16 ranger and make Robin Hood look like the ICE shooter? Too bad, roll a die like a level 1 noob.

- No, wait, the best thing is actually that this isn't a niche corner case rule - if you have an archer and a melee guy in the party, this rule will come up in virtually every single fight.

What's the 3E rule for shooting in melee? -4 penalty to the attack, unless your target is Huge. So simple I didn't even have to look it up, and I haven't played 3E in twenty years. It gives you enough of a penalty that you'll look for other targets if possible, but not so punishing that you'd have to be an idiot to shoot. Yeah it's a bit unrealistic that you don't actually risk hitting your buddy, but turns out that while friendly fire from a wizard's big 1/day Fireball can be funny and memorable, risking friendly fire on every single attack your archer is more annoying than anything.

That's what game designers learned after the 90s - you write rules by thinking and testing how they will actually play, not just by writing down what you find fun. Writing down what you find fun leads to **** that nobody ever uses like the wrestling rules.

https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Seeking_(Priest_Spell)

[Demonic Fate]

Concerning the highlighted, can you give any examples?

Here is one of my favourites - shooting into melee:

https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Missile_ ... to_a_Melee

This is classic late 80s / early 90s RPG writing, a lot of them have this sort of rules all over. The game designer thinks about a scenario in simulation terms, and comes up with a clever rule that emulates "what would happen" in statistical terms. It's cool to read and to imagine in your head, and then you actually play it.

- The game grinds to a halt as the DM figures out which targets are involved, calculates their total scores (might need to go look up the scores by size), and looks for a die to roll that matches the relative chances indicated by the formula, or calculates the percent values to use a d100.

- After all of that, the player will almost always go "wait, I have a 60% chance to hit a friendly? nevermind, I don't shoot". Or worse, he goes #yolo and shoots his buddy, causing much hilarity but not exactly living up to the "heroic party of adventurers" theme that you're supposed to be playing. (Unless the shooter was a lolgnome or something I guess.)

- Best of all, it's entirely random. You're a level 16 ranger and make Robin Hood look like the ICE shooter? Too bad, roll a die like a level 1 noob.

- No, wait, the best thing is actually that this isn't a niche corner case rule - if you have an archer and a melee guy in the party, this rule will come up in virtually every single fight.

What's the 3E rule for shooting in melee? -4 penalty to the attack, unless your target is Huge. So simple I didn't even have to look it up, and I haven't played 3E in twenty years. It gives you enough of a penalty that you'll look for other targets if possible, but not so punishing that you'd have to be an idiot to shoot. Yeah it's a bit unrealistic that you don't actually risk hitting your buddy, but turns out that while friendly fire from a wizard's big 1/day Fireball can be funny and memorable, risking friendly fire on every single attack your archer is more annoying than anything.

That's what game designers learned after the 90s - you write rules by thinking and testing how they will actually play, not just by writing down what you find fun. Writing down what you find fun leads to **** that nobody ever uses like the wrestling rules.

https://adnd2e.fandom.com/wiki/Seeking_(Priest_Spell)

> granted by elven deities

If you find yourself with a knife-ears god-botherer in your party, you want friendly fire.

[mercerxiv]

Ye, I suppose I like both AD&D2 and 3.5e for different reasons.
One for "real D&D" fantasy and play, and the other for crazy *** campaigns like WotR.

[WaterMage]

About elves, Lamentations of the Flame princess did Elves amazingly well, in the game, they are Eldritch Fae like beings with bizarre eye colors, very short stature and high perception. Holy water hurts them. A lot of Cleric spells don't benefit them or outright hurt them. Elves in most fantasy, Tolkien or Warhammer are just superhumans. In D&D, are the mid ground between Eldritch short fae like beings and superhumans from lotr/wh.

[Rand]

From what I remember, a reason for why Gygax wasn't a big fan of 3rd edition was because it was no longer gritty adventuring in a fantasy world but "capeshit" where adventurers were overpowered superheroes even at mid-level.

It's a simple design problem. Which isn't to say it was not a massive deficit on their part. It was, but it took time to show clearly.
The underlying rules rationalization they began with is very good and fixes a number of issues, while unfortunately due to the designers' blind spots crating a few critical new ones that require adjustment.
These blindspots, by the way, eventually led to proto 4th edition designs in books released at the end of 3.5, and then to the design of 4th edition as a deliberate act, which made it clear that they did not understand the game they were working on fundamentally. It was NOT D&D anymore. Just a skin over a different beast.
Also, the implementation of classes and powers and such is, as noted, overgenerous even at the beginning of 3rd edition and only got worse as time passed. Then we get 4th edition that tried to solve the blatant problem in the stupidest way possible.
They had a very confused design philosophy and it shows.

[rusty_shackleford]

3e refers to the player as "she" so it was broken from the start

[Rand]

THAC0 is cancer

Worse. Stupid cancer.
It's one of the greatest design faults of Gygax. Consulting to-hit tables.
It was so detrimental that Dragon Magazine eventually published a plan to make a wheel.

► Show Spoiler

(Yes, you see correctly. There ARE six 20s for d20 rolls on that wheel. This is for a weird reason Gygax designed in 1st edition to-hit tables that I won't attempt to explain here.)

THACO is an attempt to not have to reference one of a half dozen tables or use this workaround, but it's still awkward due to adding and subtracting negatives and other nonsense you have to do, due to the initial design flaws of Gygax's tables.
Why you would start at AC10 and go down as you become better armored while trying to roll a high number for success is an extremely peculiar choice by Gygax.
It never even made much sense in the very initial design as it was subtractive from success rolls, when people process addition far faster and more accurately, and so adding to difficulty - as with 3rd edition's redesign - is preferable from a design standpoint.

Even back in the 80s, it occurred to many of us that the system needed a redesign and there were many homebrew rules to do what 3rd edition eventually did officially.

The surprise system in 1st and 2nd edition is also kind of ****. Here is an article from 1988 about the problem, just before 2nd edition released with no substantial fix to the issues raised.

► Show Spoiler

[Rand]

- No, wait, the best thing is actually that this isn't a niche corner case rule - if you have an archer and a melee guy in the party, this rule will come up in virtually every single fight.

Worse. In 1st edition, the archer gets to shoot twice a melee round by default (as opposed to the melee character's usual one per round), doubling the chance for friendly fire.

Writing down what you find fun leads to **** that nobody ever uses like the wrestling rules.

Oh, the unarmed combat rules... grappling and punching in 1st edition... the horrible, horrible rules.

[rusty_shackleford]

AD&D has sovl

[DemoGraph]

AD&D has sovl

You don't play with souls, Satan spawn!

[mercerxiv]

3e refers to the player as "she" so it was broken from the start

True, actually this kind of resurrected an old random thought I had:
What do yall think about female heroes in fantasy? Not the she-hulk/"really a dude" type, but decently and above written/portrayed ones? Do you think a female wizard or fighter are acceptable? Can they be successful protagonists/participants in a campaign/story/game/you get it/etc.? Ofc going under assumption that none of the "modern audiences" and/or feminist writing is present. I'm not particularly well acquainted with pieces of media like that (I got the impression it's very common in anime, almost to the point of some 90% of the cast being female, but that's not necessarily what I'm talking about), most of the games that come to my mind are either more recent additions that don't qualify, games with chargen when the character is (let's be honest) a dude in writing regardless, and maybe something like old old Tomb Raider which I'm not so sure qualifies (although feel free to correct me).

I've not made up my mind on the topic yet, since I feel like I don't have enough examples. Going off some modern writing the answer is sure simple, but we all know it and it's a boring topic about a fleeting thing that will surely pass given time (smh passing something something...). Anyhow, I dunno what do I think about it in normal media with good writing since I barely seen any, so yall pitch in.