* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : i miss THAC0 's Started at 12-20-05 05:57 PM by Wellby the Fountain Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=556260 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Wellby the Fountain Date : 12-20-05 05:57 PM Thread Title : i miss THAC0 's i was just thinkng about this.... 2ed was the shiznit. AC -10, remember that? all those friggin savings throws? i still remember reference pages in the PHB... 91 was the saves i think and thaco was on 101. ah, the good old days... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Fargren Date : 12-20-05 06:02 PM Just go back to 2nd. There is a lot of people that still play it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Silverthumb128 Date : 12-20-05 06:08 PM I started out in 2nd edition. I must say, the adventures were a lot more fun, less rules back then. By "less rules," I should say that there wasn't so much in the way of being nit-picky about small rules, and such. I was never tempted to play as a Barbarian/Ranger/Deepwarden/Forsaker so I could get double my Con mod to AC. Things like that. I dunno, it just felt less like a race to uber-fy, and more of a "Let's go adventure for treasure!" thing. Not that I mind 3/3.5. I really like it. But all my fondest memories stayed in 2, where the rule/alignment fights stayed in 3/3.5. And weapon/non-weapon proficiencies. Those were fun, too. I must've taken unarmed fighting with almost all of my characters, just because sometimes, I didn't want to worry about weapon speed. Good times. :D Also, back then, 16 wasn't +3(hoping to someday be a +8), it was 1.6x better than the average. Oh, that made roleplaying fun. There were times when I didn't want to roll realy high, just because I didn't want to get an 18 on Charisma and have to be the face of the party. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Jerks Date : 12-20-05 06:33 PM Thread Title : Inflation Yeah, for all its flaws 2nd ed was less "nitpicky" than 3rd ed as far as rules came. The whole concept of character optimization is something that was foreign back in the times of teenagerdom (for me anyway). We rolled 3d6 in order and we liked it! A sixteen was a godsend. An 18 was a thing that maybe one player in 6 legitamitly had. Make your own magic weapons?!? Ha! You must not like your Constitution score. Despite my nostalga I must say that the integrated die mechanic of the d20 is all sorts of goodness. If you think about it, 2nd ed was really a bunch of seemingly unrelated rules cobbled together under one banner. Ability checks were roll under, low AC was good, high attack rolls were good, Strength could be exception (unless you were a halfling), low saves were good, and you could only rabbit punch someone on a roll of 14 on a d20 (please don't check that number...I don't have the book in front of me) :). Looking back, I don't know how I kept it all straight. ...hmm, although I must say it IS easier than trying to remember what all those finangled feats do. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Sledged Date : 12-20-05 07:03 PM ROLLBACK EDITION [GENERAL] Prerequisites: D&D Proficiency (2E or earlier). Benefit: As a free action, you can say "To hell with !" (e.g "To hell with feats!" or "To hell with skill DCs!") and play 3.x D&D as a previous edition instead. Characters' AC are recalculated to 10 minus their 3.x AC (minimum -10). Characters gain a THAC0 of 20 minus BAB (minimum -10). Feats and skills all become thieving skills, weapon proficiencies, non-weapon proficiencies, or just disappear all together as applicable. Clerics become limited to 7th level spells. Monsters' ability scores become unspecified except intelligence. Normal: You're stuck with 3.x unless someone else in your group utilizes this feat. Special: DMs automatically have Rollback Edition as a bonus feat, even if they don't meet the requirements. They need not select it. Personally, I still miss priest spells categorized by spheres. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Silverthumb128 Date : 12-20-05 07:06 PM I remember my first character, a Dwarf Barbarian, with whom I had rolled a natural 17 and 15, so his Strength was 17, and his Constitution became 17 as well(I'm not sure if the racial bonuses back then were +2, or +1, we just always had it as +2), so my DM hated it when I brought out Sargon. The funniest part was when the Halfling Thief tried to grapple me, and our DM fudged 3 rolls in a row to keep me from critting on him. :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : diphycue Date : 12-20-05 07:48 PM 3rd ed is in every way better...if you're having trouble role-playing because of the rules then you need to focus less on the rules. It's easier to learn, easier to play, easier to make unique characters, and much more balanced. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Gandal 'The Grim Fisted' Date : 12-20-05 08:02 PM Everyone to their own... but you a crazy man... Nobody liked THAC0, not then, not now, not ever... except maybe that guy in the series 'Numbers', he might've... nah, not even him... 2nd edition is like morning cartoons from your childhood. You remember the days fondly, but you can't sit through em today! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : NineInchNall Date : 12-20-05 08:10 PM Yeah, really. Has anyone actually gone back and watched an episode or two of He-man? What about the Transformers movie? Good GAWD!!! How did my parents put up with it all? 2e suffered from nearly everything (and more) that 3e does, but everyone views it through rose tinted goggles. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Seerow Date : 12-20-05 08:19 PM I despised the THAC0 system, but my group I play Shadowrun with apparently still uses it when they play D&D. Why the DM insists on buying all the 3.5 supplements just to backwards convert them is beyond my ability to tell o_O -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : nastynate Date : 12-20-05 08:27 PM 2nd ed was sooo much less uber. I could wreck things with my high level characters, that I wouldn't dare try to fight in 3.5. Heck I can recall cutting down pit fiends like butter with my two +5 wounding longswords, and ring of vampiric regeneration. No joke...you could if you really worked at it, destroy anything in the monstrous compendiums with characters in the mid to high teens. Our parties used to fight like four dozen baatazu at a time, and it's be over in a five or six rounds. I was a crazy min/maxer back then, and my buddies used to ask me to make their characters for them, so they could keep up. Then along came 3.5 and they changed the whole game so that you had to be a min/maxer just to kill trolls. Dang, they used to be chumps... I don't miss it that much really, but the system was certainly simpler, and very rarely did I find myself cross checking anything. I was just thinkng about this.... 2ed was the shiznit. AC -10, remember that? all those friggin savings throws? i still remember reference pages in the PHB... 91 was the saves i think and thaco was on 101. ah, the good old days... I got ya trumped...I memorized the whole saving throw table and could rattle off any save for any level for any class. Although now...I think I've lost it. Weren't the weapons on page 68, and the non-weapon proficiencies on like 55 or 56? I'm getting nostalgic now :bigeyes: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Gandal 'The Grim Fisted' Date : 12-20-05 08:41 PM That's the point about 2nd Ed... you were always refering to tables, making petty calculations and every action was based on a completely differnt mechanic. Hardly simpler... I played a Dwarvern Thief I rolled D20s for skill and ability checks, D6s for Dwarvern abilities, percentile for thief abilities, and reversed D20s (THAC0) to attack. Then you had differnt damages depending on the size of your oponent... what a Blink Dogs dinner... 3.0+ took everything we love about D&D, streamlined it and made it more flexible... like most other modern RPGs who very often use a single kind of dice for the whole system! 2nd was MORE complicated and less customisable. Hey... but bless you if you still prefer 2nd ed. I'm sure you enjoy it as much as listening to tapes on your walkman, watching videos and writing letters... hehe. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Jerks Date : 12-20-05 08:51 PM come on. NOBODY writes letter anymore. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Ruhl-Than Sage Date : 12-20-05 09:48 PM I know this is herasy on the WotC forums, but if you really want to play a simple game that focuses on RP rather than rules and has a lot of flavor, you should check out the new edition of the Warhammer role-playing game. I'm going to go play it as soon as my friend comes to pick me up. It's tons of fun :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : ReverendCow Date : 12-20-05 09:58 PM What about the Transformers movie? Cheez-tastic, but yes, I watch it at least twice a year. Every so often, I'll even bust out my DVD's of the TV series and watch 'em. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Milo HoBo Date : 12-20-05 11:00 PM Come on guys, you're going to get this thread locked, stay on topic. You can find many 2nd edition books cheap on amazon, e-bay, etc. Though I never played 2nd edition, I heard the mechanics were (like Gandal said earlier) different for everything. The DnD system needed some stream lining. Two Hit Amor Class Zero (THAC0) was one of the biggest complaints I heard. However, to everyman their own. I think their are boards that support older editions of the game here. Looking in the gamers classifieds you might be able to find a 2nd edition group to play with. When my older brother played, he never changed over to 3rd edition. I always wanted to show him, but we never found the time. Good gaming, and may your THAC0 score be at a record breaking new low. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Pandaemoni Date : 12-20-05 11:10 PM Come on guys, you're going to get this thread locked, stay on topic. You can find many 2nd edition books cheap on amazon, e-bay, etc. Though I never played 2nd edition, I heard the mechanics were (like Gandal said earlier) different for everything. The DnD system needed some stream lining. Two Hit Amor Class Zero (THAC0) was one of the biggest complaints I heard. However, to everyman their own. I think their are boards that support older editions of the game here. Looking in the gamers classifieds you might be able to find a 2nd edition group to play with. When my older brother played, he never changed over to 3rd edition. I always wanted to show him, but we never found the time. Good gaming, and may your THAC0 score be at a record breaking new low. Actually THAC0 was itself a streamline. The orginal system was "consult the big table in the DMG," and THAC0s allowed people to determine if they hit without that. That said, those days are passed. Simpler times, when everyone rolled d6 for initiative and there was no such thing as a prestige class. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Ranger REG Date : 12-21-05 12:57 AM i was just thinkng about this.... 2ed was the shiznit. AC -10, remember that? all those friggin savings throws? i still remember reference pages in the PHB... 91 was the saves i think and thaco was on 101. ah, the good old days... Meh. The good old days were when we had Combat Matrices from 1e. Something about them spreadsheet tables and cross-referencing with two index fingers to find what number we had to roll on the d20 is so very climactic. Agghhh... *Takes a cold shower* -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Mystyc Date : 12-21-05 01:03 AM What about the Transformers movie? "You're an idiot, Starscream." -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Bounces Date : 12-21-05 01:06 AM I miss the crazyness of the magic items and spells... My wildmagic user had his gender changed more times than I could count...My percentile just loved that double-ought -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Pandaemoni Date : 12-21-05 01:10 AM I also miss "rolling for surprise" and "round" meaning a minute and a "segment" meaning 6 seconds. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Willie the Duck Date : 12-21-05 01:53 AM I will address the difference between editions. I personally find that systems with rules that work well together are both 1) having more followers that spend more time thinking about ways to break the system, and 2) less broken. 2E, aside from its nostaligic appeal, is a horribly broken system. There was nothing resembling balance. There was no reason to play anything besides a melee character who weilded two bastard swords or a half-elven cleric/evocker/thief. Certain spells acted with no apparent opposition. There was no balance between different magic items or any guidelines to how much maigc you should have at differing levels. Rules interacted poorly, if at all. Every time a new book came out, you had to scrutinize it to see if it changed any long-held ideas about the rules, as there was no such thing as core. Psionics (as much as they are hounded in this edition), were either untouchable or complete crud in the last edition. There was no reasonable mechanic for being a non-standard race. Every time someone tried something new (either designer sanctioned or not), it became a total crap shoot whether it would break the game. Much like the White Wolf or Rifts systems, a system designed with too much freedom to develope story actually turns into a perfect opportunity to abuse the system as is. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Tyler Do'Urden Date : 12-21-05 02:10 AM i was just thinkng about this.... 2ed was the shiznit. You seem to have some extra letters at the end there. Specifically T, H, E, I, Z, and N. You might want to fix that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : zenlike Date : 12-21-05 02:20 AM I have fond memories of 2e as well. I loved the addition of kits, especially the Pathfinder ( I think I always played Rangers). Looking back now I can see how messed up the mechanics were. When Skills & Powers came out that was the end. The Cleric option had something like 120 pts to spend so you would end up with characters that had the HP''s and attacks of a fighter/the thieving abilities of a rogue/maybe a few spell-like abilities/the best saves and practically no divine magic. It was awesome. :D Rangers in full-plate wielding paired longswords. Sweet! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : CaoSlayer Date : 12-21-05 05:24 AM well, the thing I miss from 2nd edition are the splatbooks, in the old times,most of those books where about 95% fluff 5% rules, now most 3.Xe books are a cluster of thematic spells, classes, prc feats and spells. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : digoraccoon Date : 12-21-05 08:44 AM Nobody liked THAC0, not then, not now, not ever... except maybe that guy in the series 'Numbers', he might've... nah, not even him... LOL, when I used to run 2e games I'd have to make THAC0 charts because I was bad at the math. My wife though is a THAC0 genius. We used to sputter numbers at random and she'd have a 99% accuracy rate to quickly surmise the calculated number to hit the target. Kinda frightening, but alluring at the same time. What I loved about 2e was the large library of ready adventurers that were pretty well written. 3e+ doesn't seem to have many adventures, but I've made a hobby of doing conversions on some of my favorite 2e adventures to 3.5 edition. Currently I'm looking into converting "Castle Grayhawk". Now THAT was a trippy adventure :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : kintire Date : 12-21-05 08:53 AM I played a Dwarvern Thief Its an interesting thing, that I have encountered several times, that players of thieves tend to be much less enthusiastic about the old editions than the average... I enjoyed playing thieves as a character conception. But I had to have either serious Skills and powers twinkage or a very tolerant GM... they sucked. I also profoundly disliked the rampant elitism in character generation. If you rolled poor stats you were dropped on the dung hill of history. Those with good stats, however, were offered more and better options at every turn, ensuring that they would dominate play as much as possible! woo hoo! (not that I'm BITTER, obviously). On the other hand, I vastly preferred the spheres system for clerics, and I found THAC0 quite easy to handle. The specialisation system was much better for fighters I think, and there wasn't the habit of damage running so completely out of control. It fell apart rapidly at higher levels of course... but then so does 3.5, and I prefer lower level play anyway. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Maraxus Date : 12-21-05 09:44 AM I would never want to play in a (D&D) world, where humans make better paladins then the Lawful Good Dwarfs ... oh, sorry, I mean: Where dwarfs can't be Paladins at all. ;) I played AD&D only once in P&P, so I'm not the best to to know all the options, but I prefere 3.x, because you can really play a lot more (I play the vanilla-races (those in the player's handbook) only half of the time, the rest are a Goblin, Fey-Ri or Minotaur. Doing this in AD&D ... could be dangerous.) Mechanicly: Why why does +2Str have no effect on a Str 12 character, but turns a Str 18 human into a Herkules? What do Non-humans do at the level-cap? Is it a divine shot in the brain that makes them stop learning things? Or just an idea of "equalizing unbalancedness" - human are underpowered at the low levels, so they need to be overpowered at the high levels, so that at every point of the game, somebody else is unable to enjoy it?? But then again, there is one argument, I heart it from supporters of another RPG (with even worse mecanics), too: A good, balanced system like D&D makes the player just roll dice and have the rules do the balancing and everybody has fun that way and so it just get's a dice game and you don't roleplay anymore. Bad mechanics, on the other hand, force the players to focus more on roleplaying. And that's why bad game mechanics are better - you can better roleplay - no, you even have to. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Jerks Date : 12-21-05 09:52 AM I miss 2nd edition like I miss my first car. In found memory only. I choose not to remember the bad times. The far to rampant instant death attacks. The time my tire exploded sending me in a spin-out on the highway. The funky and poorly interacting mechanics. The funky and poorly interacting mechanics. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Pandaemoni Date : 12-21-05 10:13 AM I forgot about weapon speeds. Why did they drop that? It actually does take less time to swing a small nimble daggers, than a great honking claymore. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : kintire Date : 12-21-05 10:36 AM There is a small difference, but it's unimportant. The critical thing as far as going first is concerned is not weapon speed but length. The larger weapons should go first, not last. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : Maraxus Date : 12-21-05 11:11 AM I forgot about weapon speeds. Why did they drop that? It actually does take less time to swing a small nimble daggers, than a great honking claymore. Because it is simpler that way and 1 attack does not equal 1 swing of the weapon anyway. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Thailfi Date : 12-21-05 11:32 AM You miss THACO? Good old days? What are you talking about? It is tough to miss something you never stopped using. Can't say I have ever played 3e/3.5e but it does look more streamlined in every aspect except character creation and maintenance, which looks to be a thousand times more complicated. I have never understood people who said THACO was complicated. What is your THACO? 12. What is the creatures AC? 4. Looks like you need an 8 to hit. Are people that bad at math that they don't get that? Seems painfully easy to me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : kintire Date : 12-21-05 11:42 AM more streamlined in every aspect except character creation and maintenance, which looks to be a thousand times more complicated. Its not. Character creation is somewhat more complicated than normal 2e, and less complicated than Skills and Powers. Maintenance is somewhat simpler; there are more options, but you only have to worry about a limited number, and the whole Dual class/ Multiclass complication has vanished. Of course, you can make it complex if you go the whole twinkmeister dip-left-and-right-no-more-than-two-levels-in-any-class route, but that is not required. Or even recommended. Edit: Spolling fur begouners -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Pandaemoni Date : 12-21-05 06:54 PM Because it is simpler that way and 1 attack does not equal 1 swing of the weapon anyway. In real life, if I have a knife and you have a great sword, you'd better hit me on your first swing or your dead several times over. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Tenzhi Date : 12-21-05 11:48 PM 2E, aside from its nostaligic appeal, is a horribly broken system. There was nothing resembling balance. There was no reason to play anything besides a melee character who weilded two bastard swords or a half-elven cleric/evocker/thief. And yet people did. Part of the problem with the newer editions stems from creating a rule for everything in the name of balance. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : kintire Date : 12-22-05 06:00 AM In real life, if I have a knife and you have a great sword, you'd better hit me on your first swing or your dead several times over. Why? unless you throw it, it which case I may be dead once, you're well out of reach. As long as I don't let you close to grapple I can attack all I want and you can't hit back. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : Cab Date : 12-22-05 08:08 AM In real life, if I have a knife and you have a great sword, you'd better hit me on your first swing or your dead several times over. In real life, he oughtn't swing his greatsword at you, he should hold it out in front of him and feint to thrust at you. The LAST thing he ought to do is swing it at someone holding a knife, he should try to persuade you to come on to him. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : Thailfi Date : 12-22-05 09:29 AM Yeah, in real life a guy with a greatsword against a guy with a knife only uses the greatsword as a spear. He'll never let the guy with the knife close into threat range without taking several jabs and a slash of the sword. No contest, reach is everything. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : Higmorton Date : 12-22-05 10:38 AM I think some have missed the point. It does not matter if you are playing 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 3.5. Playing D&D, or AD&D was, is, and will still be fun no matter what rules you like best. I used to be able to create a charater for 2nd ed. in under ten minute. For 3.5 it took me over and hour. As for THAC0's and other tables, Well, I looked it at it this way, you had to do a little thinking, and some math. If a player was unable to count to 20 without having his shoes off then he probably shouldn't be role-playing in the first place. The Grandfather clause still stands for all editions though if you don't like the rule then change it. I alway had fun playing a wemic, ranger. The funniest character I played was a drow fighter, he was master in throwing darts in each hand. A character with 8 attacks in one round at first level really ****** of my DM. Well, I guess I will break out the 3rd ed. books again, and se what all of you are talking about. Maybe I will like it better. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : Higmorton Date : 12-23-05 11:33 AM Yeah, in real life a guy with a greatsword against a guy with a knife only uses the greatsword as a spear. He'll never let the guy with the knife close into threat range without taking several jabs and a slash of the sword. No contest, reach is everything. In real life, and I have a 6 foot long claymore, anyone coming at me with a knife willbe cut in half.. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : Tenzhi Date : 12-23-05 11:40 PM In fantasy life, however, the guy with the knife will jump onto the blade of your sword, run up it, and poke you in the eye. And isn't fantasy life what really matters in a fantasy game? :P ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Higmorton Date : 12-24-05 01:06 PM All too true about the fantasy life. I think it is dad, that you can a fighter throwing darts take down a dragon quicker than a fighter with a longsword. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : Venomous Date : 12-24-05 04:15 PM Thread Title : 1st Edition, baby! 2nd and 3rd edition are both insanely lame. 1st edition is still the greatest, and had the best mods too. Does anyone else remember House on Griffon Hill or House of Strahd? Those 1st edition Ravenloft modules were the bomb, baby! All you needed was the Player's Handbook, the DM's Guide (if you ever DMed), and Unearthed Arcana! You were good to go! 2nd and 3rd edition analyze and dissect too many things. With all that clutter, it diminishes role players and favors cookie-cutters and nitpickers. 1st edition is easy. It's a simple formula. Less material, easier to memorize, organize, maintain and manage. Less material = more imagination. 2nd and 3rd edition is just bloated. There's too much material with little or no continuity to existing rules. Just because there is more material to be found in 2nd and 3rd edition doesn't mean it's better. Maybe for those who lack the imagination to fill in the gaps. You didn't have to spend a thousand dollars on various books or have to worry about being "uber", or "epic" or gaining "prestige" in 1st edition. It was about role playing and using your imagination. All you needed was a set of dice, a miniature, the player's handbook and a REALLY kick-ass DM. But those days are long since gone. This is the dawn of Eberron and now 1st edition gamers are starting to hear "the call." We fade into nothingness. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : Higmorton Date : 12-25-05 08:47 AM I have 1st, 2nd, and 3.0. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses. What matters most is having fun playing the game. The changes between 1st and 2nd were not as abrupte as 2nd to 3rd. But as you said, what matters most is having a really good DM,and the players to go with it. And the only other things that are needed are the Players Handbook, DM's Guide, and a Monster Manual. The rest is up to the DM's and player's imigination. Happy Gaming! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : RobertFisher Date : 12-25-05 08:52 PM You know, I considered switching to 3e style for classic D&D instead of using the combat table or THAC0. But while it appeals to me aesthetically, I really don't find it makes the game any faster or simpler in practice. Likewise on unifying everything to "d20, roll high". There's only a handful of mechanics that get heavy use, & they're easy enough to remember. & since my AD&D groups really played classic D&D with AD&D window dressing, I could say the same about my AD&D experiences... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : Bilar Date : 12-28-05 02:07 AM Sure, i guess the new eds are more streamlined; but, from round to round it sometimes takes the same amount of time to get through the actions, and yes, the 3/3.5 rules are a bit nitpicky. Fun is still had though, as it has been mentioned many times afore, it's bout having fun in a fantasy setting. Typically i've always played a roguish character... am i the only person that misses the old lvl advancements? i miss being a lvl or so higher than everyone with the same amount of exp... until i failed some asinine roll... stupid ranger's wolf survived the waterfall, why couldn't i? Rambling aside, yes, it's all about the fun-zorness of it all. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : Tenzhi Date : 12-28-05 02:36 AM Sure, i guess the new eds are more streamlined; but, from round to round it sometimes takes the same amount of time to get through the actions, and yes, the 3/3.5 rules are a bit nitpicky. Yes. It's like they streamlined the mechanics but added more rules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : Cab Date : 12-28-05 05:49 AM Yes. It's like they streamlined the mechanics but added more rules. Nicely put. If I were to design a game system, it would havea single mechanic for resolution of skills, combat, magic, etc. A lot of systems are designed. They either work well or they don't, the trick, I think, is to balance things out such that they all work within that mechanic. Its harder to tinker around the edges of designed games and make them work for you as an individual DM, so almost by definition they need more rules to keep them working. Classic Dungeons and Dragons, and its sister 1st ed, didn't really get designed; I don't believe that Gary Gygax sat down and just wrote the system, with Dave Arneson looking over his shoulder. You can pick out lots of different elements, devised at different times, taken from different influences. The advantage of that is that each part is balanced within its own mechanic, you can fiddle with each part seperately very easily, and you can hang new things off whichever mechanic fits best, or even add in your own new elements very easily. The disadvantage is that for a new player it can be connfusing. For me, the 'evolved' rather than 'designed' games win out. I get on well with classic D&D, I kind of like 1st ed, ideally with some of the fixes from second. I appreciate that 3rd ed has some elegance to it, but I do wish that the elegance had been allowed to show through more by having less cumbersome extras layered on top of what is, at heart, a good mechanic. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : Jerks Date : 12-28-05 09:11 AM Yes. It's like they streamlined the mechanics but added more rules. And that in a nutshell, is the chief problem of 3E. Don't get me wrong, I've gotten thousands of hours of enjoyment from D&D3E and the d20 system in general, but the sheer proponderance of rules can be boggling at times. It probably doesn't help that between D&D, Star Wars, D20 Modern, D20 Future and Mutants and Masterminds, I've got so many similar but different d20 systems going through my head that they sometimes overlap. I never had this problem in the Old days, when we played AD&D 2nd ed, Rifts, Star Wars, Castle Falkenstein, and Hero system...because they at least all had different die mechanics. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : Tenzhi Date : 12-29-05 02:39 AM It probably doesn't help that between D&D, Star Wars, D20 Modern, D20 Future and Mutants and Masterminds, I've got so many similar but different d20 systems going through my head that they sometimes overlap. I never had this problem in the Old days, when we played AD&D 2nd ed, Rifts, Star Wars, Castle Falkenstein, and Hero system...because they at least all had different die mechanics. :) I can so relate to that. Sometimes I think I'm familiar with way too many systems. I went through a phase when I'd buy just about any game I hadn't dealt with just to check out the mechanics. I've still got a few throwbacks to that era around just because I liked their mechanics or setting in particular (H.O.L. and World of Synnibarr come to mind). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : Varl Date : 12-30-05 08:28 PM LOL, when I used to run 2e games I'd have to make THAC0 charts because I was bad at the math. My wife though is a THAC0 genius. We used to sputter numbers at random and she'd have a 99% accuracy rate to quickly surmise the calculated number to hit the target. That's because it's basic algebra. I still DM 2e, mainly because I own almost all of the books for it, so I didn't feel the need to throw all that out in favor of spending more money on the same products I already own, only with a new way of doing things. It was easier to just modify 2e to taste and get rid of the bad parts then to chuck it all away and start from scratch. I've bought a few of the d20 books, mainly monster books I could convert back. Core 2e was broken, yes, but modified core 2e doesn't have to be and is just as viable a game to play under as d20. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : Varl Date : 12-30-05 08:32 PM You miss THACO? Good old days? What are you talking about? It is tough to miss something you never stopped using. Can't say I have ever played 3e/3.5e but it does look more streamlined in every aspect except character creation and maintenance, which looks to be a thousand times more complicated. I have never understood people who said THACO was complicated. What is your THACO? 12. What is the creatures AC? 4. Looks like you need an 8 to hit. Are people that bad at math that they don't get that? Seems painfully easy to me. Heh. Yeah it is. I think it has something to do with the fact that the math doesn't always go in only one direction. i.e. THAC0 12, creature AC of -1, you need a 13 to hit. But a 12-1 should be 11, right? In basic math, yes, but not in AD&D. :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : weasel fierce Date : 12-30-05 09:43 PM Heh. Yeah it is. I think it has something to do with the fact that the math doesn't always go in only one direction. i.e. THAC0 12, creature AC of -1, you need a 13 to hit. But a 12-1 should be 11, right? In basic math, yes, but not in AD&D. :P It is basic math, but you're forgetting a minus. Its 12 - (-1) :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : Arnkel Date : 12-31-05 11:19 PM This is why I lovingly refer to the massive hodgepodge of rules I play by 18th edition. It combines a bit of each edition, plus the houserules I had always added to each edition anyway. Whenever the next edition comes out(be it another revision or 4e), I'll eventually get around to playing it, tinker with the mechanics again, and the resulting monstrosity will be labelled 20th edition. That's right, I play 3.5 with class restrictions, Kits, and blackmoor limb-hp percentages. Like others do, I've also outright stolen from other systems to add mechanics to D&D. Some things about the WotC Magic-heavy way of doing things just never sat right with me. I'm not about to bring back Thac0, but a streamlined and modified version of the old Saving throws would be cool. And lets not forget morale! I think a cowardly meter, and the "Fluff" parts of the 2e MM(Ecology, society, Activity Cycle, Diet, etc.) could really help for some starting DMs who haven't had the same opportunities as those of us who played in previous editions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : RedWizard Date : 01-03-06 12:22 PM I'm running a 1st ed. game and since I have the hit chart in front of me when I run it is easy to determine AC to hit. As for weapon speed, I love it. My players are finally understanding why using a 2-handed sword is not always all it is cracked up to be in regards to weapon speed. I agree with the big weapon goes last, it takes a lot of momentum to get a 2-handed sword or a battleaxe to swing. Short stabbing weapons are simply faster. The Romans knew this hence they used short swords for up close fighting. Their short stabbing swords were much faster and effective against the longer heavier swords used by the celts. Bastard/2-handed swords were not stabbing blades, they are extremely heavy and your wrist would be mush after a few minutes of using it like a fencing foil. They were meant for broad swings where their weight could be leveraged in combat. The 2-handed swords of France were actually whirled in a spinning motion by their wielders in order to get the sufficient momentum needed to bring them into combat. Battle axes I wont even get into, obviously they were not used for stabbing. Now if a player states he wants to hold the blade itself in one hand and the haft in another while stabbing, ok (so long as he has gloves) but I would only award damage as for a spear. The high damage awarded a large weapon comes from leveraging it's weight in an actual swing. That takes time in combat. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : oralpain Date : 01-11-06 08:44 AM Roman used short swords for several reasons: Thrusting weapons are much easier to use (and draw) in close formations where everyone is using a tower shield (scutum). A 2 inch deep thrust into someones liver, or between their ribs, is usually fatal. A slash, or chop is less likely to produce a casualty. The metal used in the the gladius (soft iron with a carburized exterior) would not have been suitable for a longer blade. Larger swords would not have been feasable at the time. Later, as metal working improved they mostly moved to a longer blade (still useually less than a meter overall), the spatha. Speed had little to do with it. Reach is everything, if you have room for such a weapon. You do not thrust with a large sword as if it were a "fencing foil". You use it as a spear. Hold the hilt, and hold it near the mid point of the blade. Would probably work best with gloves, but you can even do this bare handed and still be effective. Most of these swords are actually rather dull. Often two handed swords had a second guard, well above the first, so they could be used this way more effectively. Some times the section of blade behind this secondary guard was not sharpened and was wraped specifically to be an extention of the grip. The spacing of the hands with ths type of sword used in this manner could easily be in excess of two feet. That is plenty of leverage. Half of the weight of the sword would be behind the first hand. Speaking of weight, most two-handed sowrds actually meant to be used in combat weight between four and eight pounds. The 15 pound weight given in the PHB is absurd for a non-ceremonial sword. The original writers of AD&D 2nd edition did not take many of these things into account. Weapon types (S/P/B), speed factors, and weights are quite misleading/inacurate. Anyone who says a short sword cannot be a n effective slashing weapon, or that the best way to use a two handed sword, in many cases, is to thrust, is far too unimaginative and narow minded. Bottom line is, people did what worked. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : RedWizard Date : 01-11-06 09:14 AM Speed had little to do with it. I disagree with you on this point, speed had a lot to do with it. Anytime you can get in close with an opponent and hit him faster then he can hit you, that is an advantage. To say otherwise is to ignore one of the benefits of using such a weapon in close quarter fighting. As far as thrusting with the 2 handed sword by holding the blade, I mentioned that already in my previous post. I said though that I would award only damage for a spear if used in that manner. The velocity of a swing is what gives a sword like that it's full damage. An earlier poster mentioned that a 2 handed sword could be used to thrust and feint. If used as a spear I would go with this though award damage to suit the style, but if they planned to hold the sword merely by the grip, thats not going to happen with such a sword. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : oralpain Date : 01-11-06 03:15 PM Yes, you can get more thrusts off in a shorter amount of time with a short sword, but you are not going to get he opportunity to strike first against a much longer weapon, at least when first closing to melee range. That is why I think the speed factors are somewhat counter productive. I allow the longer weapon to go first automatically the first round of any combat. As for damage, since thrusting is going to attack vitals more directly, and the mass of the sowrd is not going to change, I'd leave damage the same. The only real disadvantage I see with thrusting is that it's not going ot have as good a chance at knocking some one over or harming them through some armors. I don't like changing damage, attack modifiers, or stuff like that depending on how the weapons is used. The combat system is very abstract, and it's safe to assume that through out a round, or even within a single attack, the weapon is used many different ways. An attack is not a single swing afterall. I'm just going to keep giving significantly longer weapons the iniative for the first round, and drop the speed factor on a two handed sword to 7 or so. A short sword will still go first more often than the two hander once combat gets going (assumign the weilder survivied that first attack), but it's not going ot be as drastic as it was before. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : weasel fierce Date : 01-11-06 03:44 PM Yes, you can get more thrusts off in a shorter amount of time with a short sword, but you are not going to get he opportunity to strike first against a much longer weapon, at least when first closing to melee range. That is why I think the speed factors are somewhat counter productive. Thats why, in AD&D1st edition, speed is only used when attacking spell casters, or when initiative is drawn. I allow the longer weapon to go first automatically the first round of any combat. Again, AD&D1 rule. Longer weapon strikes first if either side is closing or charging -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : havard Date : 01-12-06 09:31 AM Here is another take on speed/reach etc: Initiative using this rules option is used without taking weapon speed into consideration. Reach: Long weapons, such as spears and polearms make it harder for attackers using shorter weapons to get close enough to deliver a successful blow. If attacked by someone not using a long weapon your AC improves by 2 points. Light/small weapons: These weapons are easier to handle, allowing for quicker, more presice attacks. Yet these weapons are less effective against armored targets. When attacking unarmored or lightly armored opponents using small or light weapons such as daggers, short swords or rapiers, you gain a +2 bonus to hit. Creatures with thick scales etc are considered armored opponents. The rules above are based on the idea that combat is abstract. Thus having a long reach or a swift weapon is reflected in AC and THAC0 rather than for initiative rolls. Thoughts? Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : kintire Date : 01-12-06 10:20 AM I agree with the big weapon goes last, it takes a lot of momentum to get a 2-handed sword or a battleaxe to swing. Short stabbing weapons are simply faster. The Romans knew this hence they used short swords for up close fighting. Their short stabbing swords were much faster and effective against the longer heavier swords used by the celts. Its not the case at all. Leverage means that the longer a sword is, the easier it is to get the tip moving quickly. Heavy swords are hard to swing, which is why swords weren't very heavy. Roman infantry used short swords because they are more effective in tight melee; they also used a longer sword called the Spatha for looser fighting, especially cavalry. The celts used a wide variety of sword types, most light and agile. The "Roman" gladius itself was based on a celto-iberian design. Bastard/2-handed swords were not stabbing blades These were two completely different weapons. Bastard swords were used two handed, or occasionally single, and were primarily stabbing weapons with triangular blades tapering to a very sharp point designed for piercing the joints in plate armour. They could also be used for cutting lighter armoured targets, and there were similar sized swords with parrallel edges for this. The two handed sword (zweihander) was used against pikes and polearm wielders and was usually used more like a staff than a sword, but could be used to stab by gripping the blade half way down. This technique was also used to pierce armour joints. Both weapons were fast and had excellent reach. The metal used in the the gladius (soft iron with a carburized exterior) would not have been suitable for a longer blade. Larger swords would not have been feasable at the time. Later, as metal working improved they mostly moved to a longer blade (still useually less than a meter overall), the spatha. Longer swords had been perfectly possible in bronze, and both romans and celts were perfectly capable of making them in iron too. The spatha is contemporary to the gladius, although it didnt replace it as an infantry weapon until later. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:18 AM.