* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Which edition of classic D&D do you play? Started at 03-05-05 04:25 PM by Joshell Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=389799 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Joshell Date : 03-05-05 04:25 PM Thread Title : Which edition of classic D&D do you play? Hello, I'm just wondering for those who are currently playing classic D&D, which edition are you using. Which is your favorite? Around six or seven months ago I was trying to get my brother into gaming and I tried several different games before we settled on Basic D&D as it was the one he liked the most. I started him on the red cover '81 edition edited by Tom Moldvay. In the interim between when we started and now we have dabbled in a few other games like d6 Fantasy, d20 Star Wars and WoTC's new boxed D&D BASIC GAME. Now recently we have gone back to classic D&D and are ready to graduate to the Expert set, blue cover '81 edition edited by David Cook and Steve Marsh. We would have moved to the Expert set earlier, however we were held back due to various issues such as his first foray into the Haunted Keep resulting in a total party wipeout! Several deaths and a few crippling encounters later he has a character threatening an advancement to 4th level...yay! I can say playing classic D&D has been some of the funnest experience I have had gaming. Not just now, but since my early days back in '82. The edition I always seem to fall back on is the '81 3rd edition Basic/Expert sets. I guess it's because that's the edition I first played, and still play today. However, I do plunder the Companion and Masters sets for material. Anyway, which is your favorite? or, at least, which edition do you usually play? What sets do you use? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : cerebus Date : 03-05-05 05:01 PM I play a hybrid using bits from all the editions: B/X, 1e, 2e (not as much, but..), even [gasp] 3.x. It works for me and my players. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 03-05-05 05:42 PM I've played B/X, BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia version of Classic D&D, but I've finally settled on pure B/X. It's got everything I need to game for years (getting to 14th level ain't easy), just enough rules to be interesting but not slow and complex and it's all contained in two little books. At this point I'm haunting Amazon and eBay slowly buying up copies of the B/X books, so even if the ones I use now fall apart eventually, I'll always have backups. I don't think I'll ever run a game with any other edition of D&D ever again, I'm THAT happy with this version of the game. :dancin: :cheer: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 03-05-05 06:41 PM '81 Basic/Expert sets and core AD&D books from same period......and MM2 1983. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Monteblanco Date : 03-05-05 10:31 PM I use the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, although I would easily run a game with B/X, as my campaigns seldom go above the 10th level. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : I'm Batman Date : 03-06-05 05:40 AM I play a hybrid using bits from all the editions: B/X, 1e, 2e (not as much, but..), even [gasp] 3.x. It works for me and my players. You evil evil person, you! I play the same way. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : kengar Date : 03-06-05 03:09 PM Moldvay & Cook B/X, though I frequently thumb through the RC for ideas. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : weasel fierce Date : 03-06-05 04:39 PM Mentzer / RC, and AD&D1st edition. Im not opposed to playing 2nd ed, but I prefer the older one. Am putting final touches on my own "oD&D" deluxe variant, as we speak. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Joshell Date : 03-06-05 10:02 PM Hello, Wow, appears that more people are playing, or using, the old 3rd ed. B/X sets. I figured there would be more using the Mentzer 4th editions...hmm. Apparently there are a number of people amalgamating classic and AD&D stuff. Not really surprising, even though I currently run pure B/X, in the early day's I did mix alot of D&D/AD&D. We used the simpler core rules for combat and magic from B/X;the expanded class/race options and spell lists from the PHB; combat tables, saving throws and magic items from the DMG. Plus the MM and FF for monsters. At this point I'm haunting Amazon and eBay slowly buying up copies of the B/X books, so even if the ones I use now fall apart eventually, I'll always have backups. :D Now that's funny...I've been doing the same thing. I don't have any of my original copies with me, they're all locked up in storage in Colorado (and I now live in Florida). When I started playing with my brother I picked up a copy of the Basic book for $1.99 and the Expert for $3.00 at a FLGS. Since then I have purchased a bunch of stuff online and at FLG shops and used book stores. I was thinking along the same line as you...I'm gonna make sure when I end up in the retirement home I'll still have a copy laying around. I'm just glad to know there are people out there using the ole classic stuff, kind of inspiring. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : RobertFisher Date : 03-07-05 01:57 PM Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X is currently my favorite D&D. OD&D is tempting me, though. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : 3Man20 Date : 03-07-05 03:21 PM Kind of a mix of 1st and 2nd editions, really. Everyone that is in my group either has played forever and is used to those editions...or is just learning and doesn't know any different anyways, so I figure, why change over to the new stuff? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : cerebus Date : 03-07-05 04:20 PM You evil evil person, you! I play the same way. I'd really like to try OD&D sometime, but the rules are too expensive on ebay, and Diaglo lives juuuuust far enough away to make that impossible. sigh. :allalone: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : weasel fierce Date : 03-07-05 05:22 PM Check my "oD&D reinvented" thread on the campaign worlds forum. If you ditch the variant and advanced classes, its basically oD&D. Feedback is very welcome too ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : protonik Date : 03-11-05 09:19 PM Well, I usually play 3e (3.0, 3.5, its all 3e so blah) but recently got tired of all the wackity wack of high level play in those campaigns and have been looking into Castles & Crusades and cracking open my 2e books again as well as RC D&D. I will prolly go with C&C because it seems like everything that 3e looked to be before it came out but 2e has a certain nostalgia to it (minus the PHBR books... blech) and I don't like the races as classes of RC, it just NEVER sat well with me... at all... I actually protested playing it once based on that, yet I love the simplicity and the fact that you need just ONE book! As far as 2e, while I loved specialty Priests, I disliked how they were handled in the campaign settings, or not handled so to speak. A lot of cool flavour in those Specialist Priests. Have any of you looked into C&C? It seems to be just what the doctor ordered in many ways, smooth, streamlined and every bit as evocative as 1e or 2e ever were! I still love 3e but man, am I burnt out on NPC design. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 03-12-05 03:16 AM Have any of you looked into C&C? It seems to be just what the doctor ordered in many ways, smooth, streamlined and every bit as evocative as 1e or 2e ever were! I gave the C&C PHB a good looking over at my FLGS and quickly put it back on the shelf. As far as I could see it was a poorly written, poorly edited attempt to sucker players of previous editions into buying d20-lite. Not to mention the layout is about as inelegant as a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest and while some may find it "evocative", I found it to be quite bland in a verbose and overly pretentious way. The rules seemed OK in an "I could have come up with this stuff on my own" sort of way (you know, not very imaginative, but usable). I suppose it would be an OK system if you just HAVE to play something that's currently in print, but I would highly recommend anyone considering buying it to take a long, hard look at it first, as the "reviews" I've seen in most places tend to gloss over the glaring problems and emphasize certain things as "strengths" which, upon closer reading, may not be as appealing as the description leads you to believe. Which was really quite a disappointment, as I was hoping C&C would turn out to be OD&D-modernized, rather than 3e-devolved and cluttered up with a bunch of useless verbage. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : weasel fierce Date : 03-12-05 03:27 AM for oD&D modernized, go to the link in my sig and take a peek. EDIT: at least I thought it was in my signature.... ah well. its at this page (http://www.freewebs.com/weaselfierce/roleplay.htm) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : RobertFisher Date : 03-12-05 07:55 AM Although my name is in the C&C PHB, I have to admit that I still prefer B/X D&D. It's good to have a game in the spirit of the old games in print again. It's better that there will be CZ & other modules for C&C being published that will be easy to use with the old games. It's also good to have as a possible compromise if players are too hesitant about playing the old games. If you're happy with the old games, skip the C&C PHB/M&T/CKG & go straight for the modules. EDIT: at least I thought it was in my signature.... ah well. its at this page (http://www.freewebs.com/weaselfierce/roleplay.htm) It's still there. Sigs only appear in the 1st message by the poster in each thread. (Although, I think you can change it in the preferences...) Edit: (So my polite, brief sig is looking kind of silly now. Maybe I should upgrade it with four large images & a thousand links... :)) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : GreyLord Date : 03-12-05 12:50 PM I did a similar thing to you weasel...mine is still in development, looking for help though...when I'm ready I'll probably ask for it. One can see what I've done with the 3.5 rules here http://www.geocities.com/dragonlance3rded/BardicAdalyst.html (caution since it's on geocities there are popups, hopefully someday I can find a different host without the popups). It's two pages, and rough format currently. The goal wasn't to basically put down 1e again, or 2e again, but to recreate the feel...all the rules are optional. In addition it has rulings that try to recreat THAC0 but instead use the existing 3e system. On Fierce Weasel's system (not mine that I just put the link to). Download the C.a.C. PDF at the top of the page, I don't think his item is the F.A.D. Scifi Skirmish rules, but his Caverns and Cavaliers. It's more like Basic D&D in some ways than mine. I didn't like the everyone starts off as a Commoner idea, but I do like the Adventurer class. I think it was pretty clever with the crossbow damage. My version would be more of a feel of AD&D early core 2e/older 1e, and his definately feels more like OD&D from my experience, though his does have a lot more classes available overall. Interesting setting. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : protonik Date : 03-12-05 01:53 PM I gave the C&C PHB a good looking over at my FLGS and quickly put it back on the shelf. As far as I could see it was a poorly written, poorly edited attempt to sucker players of previous editions into buying d20-lite. Not to mention the layout is about as inelegant as a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest and while some may find it "evocative", I found it to be quite bland in a verbose and overly pretentious way. The rules seemed OK in an "I could have come up with this stuff on my own" sort of way (you know, not very imaginative, but usable). I suppose it would be an OK system if you just HAVE to play something that's currently in print, but I would highly recommend anyone considering buying it to take a long, hard look at it first, as the "reviews" I've seen in most places tend to gloss over the glaring problems and emphasize certain things as "strengths" which, upon closer reading, may not be as appealing as the description leads you to believe. Which was really quite a disappointment, as I was hoping C&C would turn out to be OD&D-modernized, rather than 3e-devolved and cluttered up with a bunch of useless verbage. Ummm, not to sound trite but maybe you should have read it thoroughly instead of a "good looking over". Not trying to sound snippety but really, the game warrants more than a good looking over to get a good feel for what it really does. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : weasel fierce Date : 03-12-05 02:36 PM Download the C.a.C. PDF at the top of the page, I don't think his item is the F.A.D. Scifi Skirmish rules, but his Caverns and Cavaliers. It's more like Basic D&D in some ways than mine. I didn't like the everyone starts off as a Commoner idea, but I do like the Adventurer class. I think it was pretty clever with the crossbow damage. My version would be more of a feel of AD&D early core 2e/older 1e, and his definately feels more like OD&D from my experience, though his does have a lot more classes available overall. Interesting setting. yeah, FAD is my scifi wargame stuff. Its a good little game, but no relevance to D&D of course :) You are very right in that I used oD&D as my base. Im a huge fan of oAD&D but I wanted something that was the simplest possible core of D&D. The commoner idea is one Im rather keen on, but it can easily be removed. Either start the players at level 2, or just ignore it, and have people pick the class right away. I was never that happy with the thief in oD&D. Seemed too specialized, and didnt mesh well with the other classes. It works better in AD&D, where theres a larger number of classes and archetypes. The adventurer can be your rogue, or he can be something else entirely. Cheers The setting information -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 03-12-05 03:26 PM Ummm, not to sound trite but maybe you should have read it thoroughly instead of a "good looking over". My FLGS is really nice about letting people look before they buy. I took it in the back room and sat down at a gaming table and read for about 30 minutes. I got through most of the character class descriptions, the combat section and read some of the major spell descriptions in detail. In addition, I had a printed copy of "errata" from the TLG website with me, so I could look at a few places where there had been mistakes made and see just how extensive the poor editing was (in this case, very extensive). I've been reading and playing RPGs for over 20 years, so I think I've got a pretty good handle on what I like and what a quality product looks like to me. C&C just doesn't cut it, not by a long shot. I'm not willing to waste $20 on it just so C&C fans on the intarweb will consider my opinion "informed". AFAIC, my opinion (which I would have kept to myself if you hadn't asked for comments from people who had checked the game out) is as informed as it needs to be for someone who doesn't like and doesn't want to purchase the game. Whether you personally give it any credence is up to you. Not trying to sound snippety but really, the game warrants more than a good looking over to get a good feel for what it really does. This I wholeheartedly disagree with. If you've got any experience with Basic D&D and 3e D&D, you can see where just about every piece of the game mechanics in C&C have been drawn from. The only exception would be the "prime" mechanic of the SIEGE engine, which is so simple that anyone who cannot understand how it functions within the first 30 seconds of having it described to them probably shouldn't be playing RPGs. So no, it doesn't really require extensive study to get a feel for "what it really does". The game provides a fairly simple framework for traditional style fantasy gaming. It does so in a complex, unlovely, garbled and in many cases inaccurate and self-contradictory way. It has unneeded rules in some places and completely lacks needed or useful rules in others. The text is packed in very tightly, but often the writing takes several hundred words to say something that could have been covered in a single sentence. One part of the book will tell you to turn to section X for rules on Y and when you turn there, not only does section X not contain those rules, but they are in fact not contained anywhere in the book (ex: poison). C&C appears to me to be exactly what it is; writing by committee, which is always IME a disaster. If others like it, that's absolutely great for them. However, I believe I'm still entitled to my opinion, even if it's a negative one. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Lord Ikrik Date : 03-12-05 06:34 PM I've played/DM'd Rules Cyclopedia, Boxed sets, 1st ed, 2nd ed. My homebrew world uses 2nd ed rules/Forgotten Realms creatures/homebrew creatures/Dragon mag etc mainly with a lot of 1st ed creatures and some Boxed set creatures. A cocktail of the best :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Eliza_Stormwhisper Date : 03-28-05 12:11 PM I play an interesting edition... Take the race/class descriptions from the 2nd edition PHB, combine them with core rules from the 1st edition DMG, and combine them with any various monsters I take from either 1st or 2nd edition MM (or MMII, or Fiend Folio) or make up entirely, and throw in a lot of house rules that I either made up from scratch or got an idea for from another RPG (even, gasp, 3.x) and you get the edition I play. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Bladesinger Date : 04-03-05 03:18 PM My group plays AD&D 2nd edition, which overall I think is an excellent RPG. Although 2nd edition can require a certain amount of DM input to ensure that it is "balanced" (such as disallowing or modifiying certain rules), I think the basic game mechanics work great and are straightforward enough that they can be easily modified. I haven't tried 3rd edition, mainly because it doesn't seem like the type of RPG I'd enjoy (it seems to have too much of a video game mentality) and I don't want to invest in a new set of books. Another thing I like a lot about 2nd edition is the CD-ROM rules - for less than $100 the CD has 20 books, which is much more affordable than any other RPG. The best RPG system I've ever played is probably the Star Wars RPG publised by West End Games. The rules mechanics are straightforward, extremely easy to use, and can be modified simply by adding skills as needed. It's really unfortunate that the Star Wars RPG was changed to the d20 system, since I don't think that any other RPG system is as intuitive and straightfoward as the West End Games D6 system. In fact the only use I've had for the d20 Star Wars rules is to convert ship specifications back to the D6 system, otherwise I wouldn't have had any reason to buy the d20 rules at all. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Sorel Date : 04-03-05 05:46 PM C&C appears to me to be exactly what it is; writing by committee, which is always IME a disaster. If others like it, that's absolutely great for them. However, I believe I'm still entitled to my opinion, even if it's a negative one. On the flipside (and I can see where Ourph's viewpoint comes from), I've been playing RPGs for nearly 25 years now and I just finished reading through the C&C PhB. I think it accomplishes what it claims to. There is a lack of rules, generally speaking, which is a good thing. There are some that could have been more extensive. I think that years of experience behind the screen and scads of various rule systems in my posession make it possible to use this system. At the same time, I don't think it's complex in any fashion, nor does it have a writng by commitee feel, IMHO. That's kind of hard to do with only two writers. Yes, the layout is dense and they could have used a better font. Some of the descriptive text is a bit cheesy, but that's hardly unique in the hobby. It's got a distinct feel to it and it might lack flexibility, but on the whole I thought it was quite good and I intend to use it in a campaign with support from assorted other products. Overall, it's much closer to ODnD than it is to d20 in many ways. No skills, no feats, no prestige classes.... Someone who plays B/X might not see much in it, but it would be quite a shock to someone who has only played 3.x It's also a pretty good system for new players in that it doesn't bury them in rules. I also liked the fact that saving throws become more difficult with the level of the caster. The low save DCs in 3e make are sometimes silly. My experience with old school gamers is that we aren't afraid to muck about with rules and C&C leaves enough room for us to take ownership of the game in a way that felt rather nostalgic. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-03-05 06:37 PM In response to the original query: AD&D 1e, exclusively. I own a nearly-complete OD&D + Supplements set (still missing Supplement V: Swords & Spells) and a set of the Cook/Moldvay Basic & Expert rules, but I play 1e only at the moment. I'd happily play B/E, or OD&D if I could find a group. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : chatdemon Date : 04-03-05 07:07 PM I've played every version of D&D except 3.5 (I did give 3.0 a fair shot, but it failed to win me over for the long run), including Hackmaster, but lately I've settled back into running a campaign using the Cyclopedia as the foundation. I also use a lot of optional material from the Gazetteer and Creature Crucible series, as well as a ton of homebrew stuff, including a lot of material converted from the other editions of the game. As far as C&C goes, I've given it a fair look, but to me it comes down to simply "If it aint broke, don't fix it". Cyclopedia D&D works great for me, so I'm not inclined to invest the money and time in another edition. I don't see any major flaws in C&C, but I personally agree with the sentiment of some here who feel that it is more "D20 Lite with nostalgia gimmicks" than a true return to OD&D or AD&D1e. YMMV. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Cravensson Date : 04-28-05 02:07 PM Well, I mostly refer to the Cyclopedia for Basic D&D questions - it's got everything in a semi-organized form. Before that I used the Mentzner/Moldvay set. Never had anything earlier than that. I mostly play 3.5 E these days, when I actually get to play. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : havard Date : 04-28-05 02:42 PM Well, I mostly refer to the Cyclopedia for Basic D&D questions - it's got everything in a semi-organized form. Before that I used the Mentzner/Moldvay set. Never had anything earlier than that. I mostly play 3.5 E these days, when I actually get to play. My situation is much like Cravensson. I don't get to play as much as I would like these days and when I do it is mostly 3.5 or World of Darkness. My favorite OOP version of D&D will always be Mentzer/RC though. What was the version I grew up with and I have never played any earlier versions. I have played quite a bit of AD&D2nd Ed, but I never cared much for those rules. I never had a chance to play (or even read the rulebooks for) AD&D1e, but I suspect I would have preferred those over 2E. The miserable attempt at converting Mystara to 2E also contributed to strenghtening my dislike for that ruleset. Cheers, Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Dostovie Date : 05-10-05 02:05 PM Our group uses 2e Player's Option almost exclusively now for character creation, the options are ridonkulous.... we use the Cyclopedia, obviously the 2e books, and also some 1e rules (mainly the ones that break massed combat down into an easy combat, can't think of what it's called...), of my group, I'm the only one with extensive 3.x knowledge, but sometimes (rarely) some bit of info from that version can change our perspective of certain conceptions and rules interactions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : diaglo Date : 05-16-05 10:48 AM read my sig. currently refereeing an OD&D(1974) campaign. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:16 AM.