| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 30 Oct 2009 : 17:50:14
I can't remember the thread but a scribe there commented upon how they liked the way clerical spells were dealt with in Second Edition in terms of spheres. This prompted me to read my Second Edition Players Handbook and I found myself agreeing with this viewpoint.
So the topic of this scroll is to ask: What edition specific features/rules do you like best?
For example, do you like the way clerics are handled in Second Edition? Do think when Third Edition did away with THAC0 it was inspired? Do you miss the fact that DMG's no longer have a random harlot table? 
I'll post my own reply to this thread later on so as not to clutter up this post.
Finally, please high-light the features you liked not those you dislike. There are a number of scrolls where we can discuss an edition's faults already. This one is for positive comments only.  |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jakk |
Posted - 18 Nov 2009 : 22:32:45
I (still) like OD&D for its simplicity (but I've moved way beyond simplicity for my own gaming groups' purposes);
I like AD&D 1E for its DMG's depth and breadth of subject matter, and for the Dungeoneer's SG (I still use the mining rules), Wilderness SG, and original Manual of the Planes;
I like AD&D 2E for increasing non-human level limits (but I had still done away with them altogether back then) and for its NWP system, and for the concept of kits (from the "Complete" series);
I like AD&D 2.5 for its optional rulesets, particularly Skills & Powers and Spells & Magic;
I like D&D 3E for dropping the "A", the D20 system in general, eliminating non-human level limits, getting rid of THAC0, overhauling saving throws, the single XP table, the multiclassing system (which wasn't any more broken than 1E/2E, but its mechanics are way better), the skill system, FEATS!, and consolidating the spell lists (no more separate spell descriptions for arcane and divine spells with the same name);
I like D&D 3.5 for fixing what 3E broke, mainly the barbarian and ranger, and for expanding the core rulebooks (esp. the expanded feat and spell lists in the PH, and the expanded rules in the MM);
I like 4E for its opposed roll mechanic, which I *REALLY* like now (pseudo-arbitrary DC's just rubbed me the wrong way), and for its streamlined skill system and handling of class and cross-class skills;
I like Pathfinder for its reimagining of the character classes in general, and for taking a game system with plenty of life in it and running with it.
And now the Realms:
I like the 1E Realms for their vastness, novelty, and mystery, which I still remember 22 years later;
I like the 2E Realms for the vast amount of detail and source material I had at my fingertips;
I like the 3E/3.5 Realms for the same reason that I like the 2E Realms, but I still feel that more could have been done with them;
I like the 4E Realms because they forced me to get creative on a large scale;
And finally, I really like Golarion, largely because it feels like the 1E Realms all over again for me. But this scroll isn't about Golarion, so that's all I'll say. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 13 Nov 2009 : 21:52:38
As I'm going through and converting some stuff, I'm REEAALLLY liking how Pathfinder has re-imagined the bard. Especially the Versatile Performance ability. Now, there's reasons for taking more than Perform (Sing). |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 10 Nov 2009 : 10:11:36
I like D&D for its simpleness and openness.
I like Ad&d 1ed. for its DMG
I like 2ed. in general (with the exeption of the DMG)
I like the 2.5 ed. for the rules variations that are great for small groups. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 17:47:29
- AD&D introducing the concept of Elf/Dwarf/Halfling as a Race rather than a class (being able to be an Elf Cleric, etc...)
- D20 system introduced in 3E (so much easier)
- FEATS!!!!!!!!
- Prestige Classes 3E
- Paragon Paths 4E
- 3E Multiclassing
- 4E Powers are fun (helped to do away with the multiple attacks per round which I actually like)
- Specialist Wizards in 2E and 3E
- 2E Kits for classes
I'm sure there are more but I got work to go do lol |
| Thauramarth |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 14:05:19
I really did like d20/3E's action resolution system, with the DCs. Although I remained stuck in 2.5 otherwise, I converted AD&D 2(.5)'s rules (thieving skills, attack rolls, NWP checks, saving throws) and adapted my rulesets (and the compiled rules docs I had created from the D&D CD-ROMs) to use the DC resolution system. |
| Dalmar Amad |
Posted - 05 Nov 2009 : 13:24:26
quote:
Needless to say, I really liked the specialty priests of 2E.
I really love 2E specialty priests as well, sadly my players almost never want to play priests. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 19:18:19
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
Still the differences between Cugel, the Laughing Magician, Rhialto etc. and D&D's wizard are too great to call the system Vancian imo.
I can't agree. Named spells that do just one thing, that have to be prepped beforehand, and that disappear from your memory once cast -- that's all Vance. |
| Quale |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 18:24:42
Still the differences between Cugel, the Laughing Magician, Rhialto etc. and D&D's wizard are too great to call the system Vancian imo. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 16:49:27
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
...the ''Vancian'' system (tough I don't know why is called that)...
Because it was inspired by the writings of Jack Vance.
EDIT: Wooly beat me to it... |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 16:46:18
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
4e: partial removal of the ''Vancian'' system (tough I don't know why is called that) and at-wills.
The name Vancian comes from the way magic operated in the Dying Earth tales by Jack Vance (each spell has a specific, unchangable function, it must be memorized before casting, and it is "fire and forget"). A lot of stuff in D&D came from those stories.
|
| Quale |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 16:04:31
I like from 2e that it was so much lore focused, rules aren't that important, weapon speeds, and the ''four base classes'' group is nice for houseruling. 3e's 30 base classes and hundreds of prcs should have been feat trees. 3.5e Book of Nine Swords is my favourite.
4e: partial removal of the ''Vancian'' system (tough I don't know why is called that) and at-wills. A few skills that were merged and simplified. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 04 Nov 2009 : 00:01:34
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
Has anyone tried converting specialty priests to 3.x? And Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved has spells broken into simple and complex groupings, so that might be a good resource as well.
No, but I've always wanted to. Unfortunately, I haven't had much opportunity to borrow anything from AE for my campaigns because there's few Monte Cook fans at my gaming table.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 03 Nov 2009 : 20:01:33
quote:
Originally posted by HawkinstheDM
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I think just about all of the clerical spells fell into single spheres. There might have been some that fell into more than one sphere, but I'm pretty sure those were a very small minority.
Each deity granted access to a specific set of spheres -- and even then, if they only granted minor access, then you could only use the lower level spells from that sphere, and not the higher ones.
When we were given specialty priests, it got even more specialized -- not only were they bound by their deity's sphere selection, they also got different abilities from their deity. Lathander's specialty priests, for example, turned undead as if they were four levels higher.
Needless to say, I really liked the specialty priests of 2E.
Has anyone tried converting specialty priests to 3.x? And Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved has spells broken into simple and complex groupings, so that might be a good resource as well.
Some of the were officially updated as PrCs, but a lot of them weren't. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 03 Nov 2009 : 19:48:04
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I think just about all of the clerical spells fell into single spheres. There might have been some that fell into more than one sphere, but I'm pretty sure those were a very small minority.
Each deity granted access to a specific set of spheres -- and even then, if they only granted minor access, then you could only use the lower level spells from that sphere, and not the higher ones.
When we were given specialty priests, it got even more specialized -- not only were they bound by their deity's sphere selection, they also got different abilities from their deity. Lathander's specialty priests, for example, turned undead as if they were four levels higher.
Needless to say, I really liked the specialty priests of 2E.
Has anyone tried converting specialty priests to 3.x? And Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved has spells broken into simple and complex groupings, so that might be a good resource as well. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 22:32:25
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
[quote]
I like the idea of clerics of different deities actually being different. As I posted earlier the spheres of 2nd edition are one of my really favorite aspects of any edition.
Ah, I see. I'm not to familiar with the "spheres" system of 2E since I only played it for a short time. So is each spell associated with a specific sphere or can one spell have multipul spheres?
I think just about all of the clerical spells fell into single spheres. There might have been some that fell into more than one sphere, but I'm pretty sure those were a very small minority.
Each deity granted access to a specific set of spheres -- and even then, if they only granted minor access, then you could only use the lower level spells from that sphere, and not the higher ones.
When we were given specialty priests, it got even more specialized -- not only were they bound by their deity's sphere selection, they also got different abilities from their deity. Lathander's specialty priests, for example, turned undead as if they were four levels higher.
Needless to say, I really liked the specialty priests of 2E. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 21:45:08
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
[quote]
I like the idea of clerics of different deities actually being different. As I posted earlier the spheres of 2nd edition are one of my really favorite aspects of any edition.
Ah, I see. I'm not to familiar with the "spheres" system of 2E since I only played it for a short time. So is each spell associated with a specific sphere or can one spell have multipul spheres? |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 19:14:44
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I'm still pondering the massive effort to organize the 3.x cleric spells back into domains, mainly because it limits the amount of spells clerics have available.
I have to wonder why your doing this? Is it because you find the cleric too versatile because they have access to all the spells?
I like the idea of clerics of different deities actually being different. As I posted earlier the spheres of 2nd edition are one of my really favorite aspects of any edition. |
| Kyrene |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 08:31:12
1.0 and 2.0:
Never played it, so can't comment.
3.0 and 3.5:
As I'm mathematically minded, I loved 3.0 en 3.5 for the amount of (some would say cumbersome) math that was involved. I don't care for an 'easier' encounter system.
I loved multi-classing and also the tweaked base classes like Urban Druid, Wilderness Rogue, etc.
4.0:
Also haven't played it, but I am intrigued by the death system and healing surges.
I like the 'bloodied' aspect. Sort of a last-gasp 'all or nothing' action that can be used when the hero is about to be undone. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 02 Nov 2009 : 03:11:09
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I'm still pondering the massive effort to organize the 3.x cleric spells back into domains, mainly because it limits the amount of spells clerics have available.
I have to wonder why your doing this? Is it because you find the cleric too versatile because they have access to all the spells?
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
I also tried to figue out a way to include older lvl progressions into 3.x, but I can see why the designers tossed that one out the window once multiclassing went the way it went.
One way to curb how ridiculous multiclassing can get in 3.x is to limit the character to one other base class (not including their favorite class) and they have to fullfill at least 1/2 the progression of any PrC.
[/quote] |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 01 Nov 2009 : 23:56:55
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
quote:
Originally posted by scererar
wow, this is the most positive thread I have read here in a very long time. Good job folks
The really nice thing is that it's making me pick up my older books and read them every time some-one else posts.
Currently, I'm trying to identify the 30 base classes in 3rd Edn that Diffan mentioned.
I'm still pondering the massive effort to organize the 3.x cleric spells back into domains, mainly because it limits the amount of spells clerics have available.
I also tried to figue out a way to include older lvl progressions into 3.x, but I can see why the designers tossed that one out the window once multiclassing went the way it went.
The flavor as I mentioned in my initial post is better in the earlier versions, but the mechanics in 3.x are so superior that I don't wanna miss 'em.
I also worked up a system that makes a 3.x combat round longer, unfortunately it complicated things again, so I trashed it.
As for picking up older edition books, I do that all the time, mainly because it lets my mind wander, but also to maybe chance upon a gem I can re-integrate into 3.5 |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 01 Nov 2009 : 22:11:17
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
quote:
Originally posted by scererar
wow, this is the most positive thread I have read here in a very long time. Good job folks
The really nice thing is that it's making me pick up my older books and read them every time some-one else posts.
Currently, I'm trying to identify the 30 base classes in 3rd Edn that Diffan mentioned.
For exact references, you can use this too...
Edit: Hmm... I actually get 83 unique/non-racial classes from the list. |
| ddporter |
Posted - 01 Nov 2009 : 20:59:25
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
...wow, thats alot.
43, for those who don't feel like doing the math. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 01 Nov 2009 : 18:56:05
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
Currently, I'm trying to identify the 30 base classes in 3rd Edn that Diffan mentioned.
Hehe, I thought that I had exaggerated a bit when I said that but I think there might be more actually. Lets see:
PHB: 11 classes
PH2: 4 classes
CAd: 3 classes
CAr: 3 classes
CD: 3 classes
CW: 3 classes
MH: 2 classes
ToB: 3 classes
ToM: 3 classes
EPH: 4 classes
HoH: 2 classes
Dragon Magic: 1 class
Cityscape: 1 class
...wow, thats alot. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 01 Nov 2009 : 15:53:23
quote:
Originally posted by scererar
wow, this is the most positive thread I have read here in a very long time. Good job folks
The really nice thing is that it's making me pick up my older books and read them every time some-one else posts.
Currently, I'm trying to identify the 30 base classes in 3rd Edn that Diffan mentioned. |
| scererar |
Posted - 01 Nov 2009 : 15:24:07
wow, this is the most positive thread I have read here in a very long time. Good job folks
I liked OD&D for it's simplicity and it is where I started out with D&D when I got the the red boxed set.
I liked and miss playing 2E for THAC0 - had to be said
I truly liked 3E's concept of multi classing.
I have switched to 4E and I truly like the focus on all classes being equally important and useful throughout all levels of play. |
| Marc |
Posted - 01 Nov 2009 : 14:48:33
2e: the lore, monster ecologies etc.
3e: introduction of feats, relatively flexible multiclassing
Pathfinder: from what I've seen sorcerer
4e: the basic idea of powers for every class and at-will powers, retraining, some aspects of saving throws/defenses |
| Darkmeer |
Posted - 01 Nov 2009 : 02:36:57
Okay...
1e: I love it for the adventures and monsters that have become staples of our gaming tables.
2e: Multiple XP charts. (More on this later).
The lore. It didn't matter the setting, there was a LOT of lore about everywhere and everything out there, sometimes (very nicely) there were multiple points of view. This made it easy for DM's to choose which path they wanted for their games, without overtly saying "this is the way it is." (Thinking of the Nine hells here, specifically).
Psionicists had scimitars.
3e: No more THAC0
Multiclassing was done in a beauteous way.
"0-level" Multiclass characters in the DMG. I loved these, and would implement them in games where appropriate (i.e. a Wizard/Cleric of Azuth, Sorcerer/Cleric of Mystra, Druid/Ranger of Mielikki etc.) This let people stand in with "acolytes" and still feel worth their characters. I've used them three times in games, all three times have worked out well for the player.
3.5e: The general cleanup of Polymorph and Haste.
Standardizing the sizes for the most part (leaving the other part out)
Pathfinder: CMB and CMD. I like these mechanics, it makse them easier to implement, and definitely better than standard d20. I also like the retooling of Polymorph, to a complete degree rather than 3.5's solution.
Multiple XP Charts to help slow or speed up progress, including (but not limited to) a way to integrate the old idea of slower progressions (i.e. Fighter and Rogue advance quickly, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer advance slowly, while everyone else advances medium). I haven't done that yet, but I've seriously considered it.
The ease with which it fits with most d20 stuff (druid stuff is a little tricky).
FantasyCraft: Action Dice are done beautifully.
Defense included in your class, meaning fighters are harder to hit without armor, but "wizards" are easier to hit.
Your magic items are part of your character's story, and all of them should have stories. This makes me happy, as it harkens back to 2e's Encyclopedia Magica (I have all 4, and use them to this day). The characters are also mechanically limited to the number on their person at any time, making them choose what's most important, and forgetting the rest.
Races and racial feats, as well as the Talent/Specialty mechanics (i.e. you choose your race, then you choose what you were before your class, and they have a mechanical impact on the character).
Their coming back from the dead scars most everyone who comes back. This is the most beautiful way of "cheating death" that I've ever seen in an RPG outside of Gurahl in Werewolf The Apocalypse.
All in all, I liked 'em all.
/d |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 31 Oct 2009 : 12:14:36
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
I like Pathfinder's (V3.75) cantrip/orison option for magic-users as it lets low level characters who aren't suited for combat become more involved. I think 4th Edn has a similar option. I also like the healing surges idea in 4th Edn, that does away with potions or extended periods of rest in game time. I tend to think of hit-points as stamina, or just getting your breath back, only once a character goes below 0 do I consider them wounded. Same for NPC's and monsters.
For 1st and 2nd Edn, I like the staggered experience tables. I like that different classes level up at different rates. I like that 1st Edn has titles for just about every level, and I like how they handled druids.
I enjoy how 3rd Edn deals with skills and did away with racial restrictions. Edit: Obviously, I like the way 3rd Edn dealt with hit-points, dying and stabilising.
I have to say that I like Pathfinder's method of death, specifically coming BACK from the dead, a lot better. Instead of having to 'unbuild' your character, you simply gain a negative level. Instead of removing previous levels from you character, you simply gain a penalty to just about everything. You're still a 12th level Fighter, but you have a -1 to attacks, skills, etc. and -5 hp. AND it is possible, with a restoration spell, to remove the negative levels from Raise Dead/Resurrection spells. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 31 Oct 2009 : 01:52:42
- I love 3e's multiclassing system (as others have stated) just because you can really identify with how your character is "supposed" to be.
- On the same note, I love how 4e really fleshes out your role amongst the party. The "shoe-horning" effect really helps out newer players with party mechanics and it emphasizes team play.
- I love 4e's equality over all the classes and how each one is just as fun as the other at all levels of play.
- Even though I hate 2e mechanics, it's still one of the best sources for Fogotten Realms lore and it does that damn well.
- I love 3e...vastness. I mean you have well over 30 base classes to choose from and there is something for everyone.
- 4e healing surge idea is great. Now the cleric isn't just a heal-bot the entire time.
- |
| Garen Thal |
Posted - 30 Oct 2009 : 20:17:55
I like D&D.
-I liked D&D's introduction of Dungeons & Dragons.
-I liked AD&D's allowance for nonhuman members of the various character classes.
-I liked how 2E separated out those monstrous to-hit tables to something more manageable.
-I liked the system 2E/S&P (Skills and Powers) gave more flexibility to character creation and advancement.
-I liked that 3E got rid of THAC0 altogether.
-I liked many of the 3.5 changes.
-I agree; I like that 3.Pathfinder gives an at-will element to spellcasting characters, and the CMB mechanic.
-I like that 4E abandons the notion that all spellcasting is equal, and separates combat-appropriate magic from utility magic and ritual magic.
D&D is fun. |
|
|
