Author Topic: Old D&D editions with d6's???  (Read 6098 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GawainBS

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1474
    • Email
Re: Old D&D editions with d6's???
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2009, 05:53:04 PM »
I was being sarcastic. :)
Anyway, this shows once more why 3.0/3.5 was such an upgrade.

Caelic

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: Old D&D editions with d6's???
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2009, 09:13:39 PM »
'Course, a lot of the "improvements" in third edition actually created NEW problems.

GawainBS

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1474
    • Email
Re: Old D&D editions with d6's???
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2009, 09:17:25 PM »
'Course, a lot of the "improvements" in third edition actually created NEW problems.

I'll take Third over Second anyday. Too many weird tables, "up to DM issues" and "no you can't because we say" things there.
Not that Third is perfectly balanced... :rollseyes

Caelic

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: Old D&D editions with d6's???
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2009, 09:46:22 PM »
On the other hand, in first and second edition you could make a balanced gish from level 1, clerics and druids couldn't do everything, and there was actually a point to having fighters in the group.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.  Third edition is more uniform, and certainly more congenial for those who like tinkering with builds in order to be able to do tens of thousands of points of damage, but I've never considered it a particularly good system.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Old D&D editions with d6's???
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2009, 10:47:46 PM »
On the other hand, in first and second edition you could make a balanced gish from level 1, clerics and druids couldn't do everything, and there was actually a point to having fighters in the group.

Gestalt rules are actually a pretty good simulation of the older multiclassing system.

Of course, older clerics were pretty much pure healbots, since nobody would let them prepare anything other than healing spells.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

GawainBS

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1474
    • Email
Re: Old D&D editions with d6's???
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2009, 05:34:39 AM »
On the other hand, in first and second edition you could make a balanced gish from level 1, clerics and druids couldn't do everything, and there was actually a point to having fighters in the group.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.  Third edition is more uniform, and certainly more congenial for those who like tinkering with builds in order to be able to do tens of thousands of points of damage, but I've never considered it a particularly good system.

It's not without its merits, but there are some things in it that were sheer stupidity. The limitation of nonhumans in their levels without reason, the multiclass restrictions and class racial restrictions for no apparent reason, stats capping at 25, the way stats worked (i.e. the whole middlerange of a stat was generally useless; 9 STR was the same as 15, etc), saves (Gods, why so many categories?), the lack of skills (known as non-weapon proficiencies there, IIRC?) and the randomness with which they were assigned to a class,...
A prime example what annoyed me the hell out of 2nd: The Complete Paladin Handbook has rules for what undergarments you can own as a Paladin, but the penalties of longtime armour wearing are left up to the DM. :rollseyes

There were things I liked: like you said, playing a Gish (my favourite concept ever) was very easy; you didn't have to read a gazillion books to make multiclassing work; I liked the Bard a lot more.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Old D&D editions with d6's???
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2009, 12:53:38 PM »
There were things I liked: like you said, playing a Gish (my favourite concept ever) was very easy; you didn't have to read a gazillion books to make multiclassing work; I liked the Bard a lot more.
How did you actually play a bard?  It seems all-but impossible to pull off the ridiculous prereqs.  I never got any of the characters I was aiming for bard with anywhere near bardhood.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

GawainBS

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1474
    • Email
Re: Old D&D editions with d6's???
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2009, 01:12:47 PM »
There were things I liked: like you said, playing a Gish (my favourite concept ever) was very easy; you didn't have to read a gazillion books to make multiclassing work; I liked the Bard a lot more.
How did you actually play a bard?  It seems all-but impossible to pull off the ridiculous prereqs.  I never got any of the characters I was aiming for bard with anywhere near bardhood.

You touched another godawful aspect of 2nd edition. Point buys weren't invented, yet some classes had indeed ridiculous high prerequisites.
You just had to roll lucky.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Old D&D editions with d6's???
« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2009, 02:09:46 PM »
There were things I liked: like you said, playing a Gish (my favourite concept ever) was very easy; you didn't have to read a gazillion books to make multiclassing work; I liked the Bard a lot more.
How did you actually play a bard?  It seems all-but impossible to pull off the ridiculous prereqs.  I never got any of the characters I was aiming for bard with anywhere near bardhood.

You touched another godawful aspect of 2nd edition. Point buys weren't invented, yet some classes had indeed ridiculous high prerequisites.
You just had to roll lucky.

Oh,right.  We're talking about second, not first edition.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Caelic

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 979
Re: Old D&D editions with d6's???
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2009, 08:26:50 PM »
Every system has restrictions, and there will always be people who chafe against them.  I don't consider "more permissive" to automatically equal "better."

I prefer a system that's conducive to long-term, relatively balanced play.  First and second edition were superior to third in this respect.

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Old D&D editions with d6's???
« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2009, 08:38:11 PM »
Every system has restrictions, and there will always be people who chafe against them.  I don't consider "more permissive" to automatically equal "better."

I prefer a system that's conducive to long-term, relatively balanced play.  First and second edition were superior to third in this respect.

The long term only counts if you don't use all the hazards in the rule books though.  The average 1E adventurer, IME, didn't last past first or second level.  Given that they were all basically the same mechanically, though, it was pretty simple to add another roman numeral onto the name (Ah, Nero IIIVX) and change the stats a bit when you rerolled.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Phirsole

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • Email
Re: Old D&D editions with d6's???
« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2009, 12:27:11 PM »
Quote:

Thanks. I enjoyed reading that. 
Say, how did rogues change since then, exactly? 

/Quote.

In Basic D&D and AD&D 1st, 2nd, the "Thief" had fixed percentages to succeed at his skills. At low level, these were low (10-25%). This meant, that the ROG generally failed at leats one roll of "move silent" and "hide" if he was out scouting, meaning his death. Which meant, he was not good to "check for traps" or "assassinate a single guardpost" until higher levels. And then the casters were better at this (cleric with silence spell, followed by a finger of death). He was reliable only at climbing walls (start: 83%, +1% per level, check every 10' of climbed wall, take 1d6 per 10' fallen).

The fighter had a d8 HP, the cleric a d6, and both the magic user (3.5: wizard) and the thief had a whopping d4 HP. The thief could use leather armor (+2 AC), but no shield and no two-handed weapon. Generally, they were equipped with long sword (d8+STR dmg) and long bow (d6 dmg). If the thief managed to surprise a foe, he had +4 to hit with his melee weapons and dealt double damage. In later AD&D 1st and/or 2nd, the bonus damage increased to x3 or x4 at higher levels. But since few thieves had high STR, this sneak damage was marginal and not enough to cope for the weaknesses of the class.

The black "Master Box" for levels 26-36 introduced weapon mastery with almost absurdly high damage potentials. A fighter could become a "grand master" of any weapon, the thife and cleric could become "masters" and the magic users could become "expert" in a weapon they could use. Suddenly, the fighter could attack up to four times with his sword, each hit dealing 25+ HP instaed of the meager 10 HP. Then the thieves suddenly became very good archers. But this rule was optional, and we didn't use it.

We had a lot of house rules, with which we voided most of the tables. We played with the "Three Saves" of 3.0 since 1988: external threat to body, internal threat to body, magical/willpower. Start with a value of 14 in each (equals DC 14 today), get 2 point at each level (monk 3) to distribute at your leasure, bonus for high DEX, WIS, CON. We had a clearly defined skill/feat system before 3.0 came out, and one of my buddies said "HEY, Hasbro copied our feat and save system", when 3.0 hit the shelves.

Which is rather unlikely, since we never posted the rules anywhere, and are a long way from the Wizards Coast to Cologne/Germany.