* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : What is your Eddition? Started at 02-28-06 09:08 PM by malinor Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=596089 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : malinor Date : 02-28-06 09:08 PM Thread Title : What is your Eddition? I was wondering what edditions you play. i play 1E AD&D, but i am reading 3.5E rules and they are okay. i would play them but really really prefer AD&D over simplicity and how much more fun it is. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : paigeoliver Date : 03-01-06 01:19 AM I mostly play 3.5 these days (Living Greyhawk), but my edition of choice is "Rules Cyclopedia" D&D with the single change of an alternate theive's skills table that I created, that basically spots lower level thieves about 6 levels in their thieve's skills. Under the rules as written there is absolutely no reason to play a thief below level 7 or so, because they just can't do ANYTHING other than climb walls. The reason I like Rules Cyclopedia best is because it comes in one book, and has a super high level of compatibility with everything else. You can basically run 1st and 2nd edition modules for it and not have to change anything, other than just being aware that the movement rates are quite different between editions. I also consider most books for 1st and 2nd edition to be fair game in my Rules Cyclopedia games. So the characters can take kits from the complete handbooks and such if they want them, provided they have the book. One hint about running rules cyclopedia games is that you might want to watch out for, tone down, or not use the weapon mastery rules. They make the characters a bit TOO powerful at levels below the mid-teens, and nothing seems to have been written with those rules in mind, other than the Companion and Expert modules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Monteblanco Date : 03-01-06 06:58 AM Like Paigeoliver, I am also a D&D Rules Cyclopedia fan for the exact same reasons he listed. I really think it was the peak of D&D development. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Evergreen_Aldaron Date : 03-01-06 07:42 AM I am currently in a 2nd edition campaign, but just started reading in to version 3.5 - I must admit though, I do take an awful lot from the rules cyclopedia an use it. It was very well done. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : weasel fierce Date : 03-01-06 11:09 PM Any of the "classic" D&D versions (moldvay's Basic/expert, Mentzers BECMI or the Rules cyclopedia) propably rank as my fave. AD&D1st edition is a very close one though -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Agathokles Date : 03-02-06 11:01 AM I was wondering what edditions you play. Not much right now, but given choice, I'd go for AD&D 2e, or OD&D (BECM, with optional classes and skills from the GAZs). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : realmaster Date : 03-03-06 02:38 AM Second edition. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Tenzhi Date : 03-03-06 04:19 AM 3.5 is what I tend to play. But Rules Cyclopedia is still my favourite D&D core book ever. I often wish 3.x Edition had taken more cues from that era than it did. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : RobertFisher Date : 03-06-06 06:46 PM My current favorite is the 1981 Basic & Expert sets. I'm DMing a campaign now. We have our 2nd session this evening. As a player, I happily play whatever game the game master chooses. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Cab Date : 03-07-06 07:27 AM I run classic, but my game lends from AD&D 1st ed, 2nd ed and slightly even on 3rd ed. But its definitively, identifiably classic. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Mr. VanderMeer Date : 03-07-06 07:34 AM I play 3.5 nowadays. It's mainly the character creation that I like in the new edition. More options with more customization. It addressed some of the (few) problems I had with earlier editions. Mainly restrictions that have been lifted (level limits for demihumans/ multiclass restrictions etc.) As for the rest of the ruleset I guess I'm kind of indifferent. Attacks of Opportunity, Flanking etc. in combat? It's okay but I could do without. The way spells are handled now? It's okay but doesn't really add to the experience. I've played first edition AD&D the most and I loved every minute of it. I still like it a lot but I'm not sure I could go back to the way classes and races were handled back then. (Although I must say my Unearthed Arcana Barbarian was awesome.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Extempus Date : 03-08-06 04:04 AM I started with the original boxed set in September 1981, we quickly progressed to AD&D, and I've stuck with 1st Edition ever since. I've borrowed some ideas from 2nd and one or two from 3rd, but that's about it. I know it best, it works just fine for us, and I figure, if it ain't broke, don't fix it! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Dekion Date : 03-08-06 08:29 AM I play mostly 2nd edition. I tried playing 3rd but just can't get into it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : havard Date : 03-08-06 11:22 AM I'm sorta like Mr.VanderMeer. Nowadays I mostlty play 3.5E, though I play it in a rules light way, ignoring much of the add-on rules. My OOP favorite is the D&D Rules Cyclopedia and its predecessor, the BECMI rules. I havent actually played that game for a while, but I keep coming back to the RC for reference. This might seem weird to you, but 3.5E has actually given me greater respect and understanding for the OOP rules, not because I hate the new rules (which I dont), but simply that comparing 3 different approaches to the same game has given me a greater understanding of the logic behind all of them. I like the RC because of its completeness and how it makes a rather complex game seem so easy. :) Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : urial angel of death Date : 03-11-06 01:57 PM I use a mix of 3.5 and 3.x for rules, but then use all the fluff forom 2ed adventurers, campaign settings, heck any 2ed book i can find -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : Higmorton Date : 03-11-06 02:59 PM My favorite was and is 2nd edition. I am reading version 3.x, but I still 2nd better for now, played in 1st, and even basic. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Legendarius Date : 03-12-06 11:20 PM I have to say I find the current 3.5 edition to be the best overall. I really like the options, I find it quite balanced for most things, and I love all of the 3.x third party support. The physical quality of the books is also as good as it has ever been. That said, I really love the D&D Rules Cyclopedia too. Having the whole thing in one book like that is very convenient. While the old rules were more restrictive they certainly were easy enough to play and they supported the classic dungeon crawl style of play very nicely. And while I love playing using miniatures it was much easier back then to get by without them because compared to today's game where so much of the combat system is tactical and requires miniature use to get the most out of all of those cool feats and abilities, back then you could just run it in a more story like, verbal fashion. I like the Mystara setting a lot too. One other nice thing is those old modules are very easy to convert to the new rules. L -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : havard Date : 03-13-06 08:40 AM I have to say I find the current 3.5 edition to be the best overall. I really like the options, I find it quite balanced for most things, and I love all of the 3.x third party support. The physical quality of the books is also as good as it has ever been. Technology and economic factors make it so. Ofcourse, color art does not neccesarily mean that something looks good. Although the Core Rulebooks for 3.5E are awesome layout/illustration-wise(IMO), I find that many of the supplements by WotC have dropped in quality, and there are many times I would have much preferred better quality B/W illustrations to (probably more expensive) non-so-good color art. OOP D&D quality has risen and falled during TSR's history, but there are some really awesome products that have been published, even though especially in the late 90s, TSR really pushed out alot of low-quality stuff... That said, I really love the D&D Rules Cyclopedia too. Having the whole thing in one book like that is very convenient. While the old rules were more restrictive they certainly were easy enough to play and they supported the classic dungeon crawl style of play very nicely. And while I love playing using miniatures it was much easier back then to get by without them because compared to today's game where so much of the combat system is tactical and requires miniature use to get the most out of all of those cool feats and abilities, back then you could just run it in a more story like, verbal fashion. I like the Mystara setting a lot too. Although its easy to be caught up with the new fancy stuff, 3.5E _can_ be played without minis, and extra fancy stuff can be cut down to the core. As I said, I play my 3E games in the spirit of Classic D&D. This was a lesson hard learned from the 2E era when the whole Complete Series Nightmare began... One other nice thing is those old modules are very easy to convert to the new rules. What surprises me is the lack of discussion about converting 3E stuff to OOP D&D. That is even easier to do... Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : RobertFisher Date : 03-14-06 01:42 AM What surprises me is the lack of discussion about converting 3E stuff to OOP D&D. That is even easier to do... Yeah. I started writing up a conversion of a 3e module to classic D&D once. Instead of the search check, use the normal "find traps" rule. Instead of the spot check, if the PCs search the area... Instead of the knowledge check, any PC with experience with...will know... Plus looking up the classic stats for monsters. I soon realized it was kind of pointless to be writing all this out. Just do it on the fly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : ugrosh2 Date : 03-19-06 11:15 PM My edition was 3.5, but that i could get the 1st edtion this would be my new edition, and im planing to convert eberron to the ad&d 1st edion -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : chatdemon Date : 04-24-06 01:06 AM I soon realized it was kind of pointless to be writing all this out. Just do it on the fly. I think that is a very noteworthy point. You don't tend to see a lot of conversions of 3e (or 2e for that matter) stuff back to OD&D, BECMI or even 1e, where the reverse is quite common. I think it's a mindset thing. Those of us weaned on the older editions seem more inclined to do our own conversions, or as RF says, do it on the fly, which is how I run things for the most part. 3e players especially seem trained to demand conversions for everything. Not a judgement call, just a statement of the situation as I see it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : havard Date : 04-24-06 11:26 AM I think that is a very noteworthy point. You don't tend to see a lot of conversions of 3e (or 2e for that matter) stuff back to OD&D, BECMI or even 1e, where the reverse is quite common. I think it's a mindset thing. Those of us weaned on the older editions seem more inclined to do our own conversions, or as RF says, do it on the fly, which is how I run things for the most part. 3e players especially seem trained to demand conversions for everything. Not a judgement call, just a statement of the situation as I see it. In part, you may be correct that this is a mentality thing among 3E players, though another factor is that making conversions to 3E on the fly is really hard, at least if you want to stick with the consistencies of the overall system. The ease of which things can be converted to Classic D&D is one of its major advantages. 2E seems less so, but should still be easier than conversions to 3E. Ofcourse, having complete conversions to Classic D&D could probably convince more people into playing it.... Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : chatdemon Date : 04-24-06 12:55 PM In part, you may be correct that this is a mentality thing among 3E players, though another factor is that making conversions to 3E on the fly is really hard, at least if you want to stick with the consistencies of the overall system. That's true, especially given the number of 3e players I see that are new to the game. Old diehards like myself, or judging from your posts about various editions, you, have at least the basic knowledge of the mechanics of the different editions required to do accurate conversions. I think the ease of converting to classic D&D that RobertFisher was hinting at is grounded in the very simplicity of the system. Say you're running the classic d&d party through Sunless Citadel and they encounter some kobolds, just look up kobolds in your RC or Basic rulebook and use the stats there. There's a trap on that door? Ignore the DC and whatnot, call for a F/R Traps roll by the thief, and move on. On the fly conversion of things in 3e, in my experience (I did play it for about 2 years when it came out) can have unforseen consequences, since the rules are intertwined and complex. One example of a seemingly harmless rules tweak that I often use is Fire & Forget Spellcasting. I don't use it, I let MU's in all editions simply state that they spend their hour or two each morning studying their spellbook, then just pick the spells they want when needed, limited only by their spells per day allowed at their level. In classic D&D, AD&D1 and AD&D2, the only effect this has is a (arguable in any case) minor boost in power to the MU. But in 3e? It makes the sorceror obsolete! The complexity of the rules in 3e isn't a bad thing, it's just something to consider when the conversions are made. Classic D&D, to me, is much more suited to a loose, non-exact style of DMing. Classic D&D and AD&D1 also have, IMO, a much more assumed theme that casts the PCs in a more stereotypical heroic role, where AD&D2 and 3e have shifted more toward endorsing antiheroes, but that's another topic for another day. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : chatdemon Date : 04-24-06 01:05 PM Yeah. I started writing up a conversion of a 3e module to classic D&D once. Instead of the search check, use the normal "find traps" rule. Instead of the spot check, if the PCs search the area. In my experience, you can also use a simple Wisdom ability check for mundane search and spot type checks, or as many DMs I've known do, adopt a Perception ability score to handle these. As you note, finding traps should be exclusive to the thief class, since it's a major part of their skillset and role in the party. Instead of the knowledge check, any PC with experience with...will know... Yep, a simple Intelligence check can be used in these situations, with a little common sense applied to determine who might know what. Plus looking up the classic stats for monsters. I soon realized it was kind of pointless to be writing all this out. Just do it on the fly. With the RC or BECMI and Creature Catalog books at hand, looking up the monsters as you go is pretty easy. Sure, you might find some newer critters that need actual conversions, but worst case scenario, just swap the unknown (to classic D&D rules) monster out for something similar. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : havard Date : 04-25-06 08:33 AM That's true, especially given the number of 3e players I see that are new to the game. Old diehards like myself, or judging from your posts about various editions, you, have at least the basic knowledge of the mechanics of the different editions required to do accurate conversions. You are probably right, though I suspect most of the people doing the actual conversions are people with quite a bit of knowledge of various editions. As for myself, I am most familar with BECMI D&D, AD&D2E and 3.0/3.5E, with passing familiarity of the other OOP editions. I dont do much converting though; I usually stick with whats in the main rulebooks of whatever edition I am playing. OTOH, I like making suggestions to other people's work. Makes it look like I am doing something ;) I think the ease of converting to classic D&D that RobertFisher was hinting at is grounded in the very simplicity of the system. Say you're running the classic d&d party through Sunless Citadel and they encounter some kobolds, just look up kobolds in your RC or Basic rulebook and use the stats there. There's a trap on that door? Ignore the DC and whatnot, call for a F/R Traps roll by the thief, and move on. Yep. The only cases where this can be a problem is ofcourse if you want to convert modules using high level humanoid races. Do you dig out Orcs of Thar (or Complete Humanoids for 2E), or do you simply use the HD and AC of the NPC? On the fly conversion of things in 3e, in my experience (I did play it for about 2 years when it came out) can have unforseen consequences, since the rules are intertwined and complex. Yep. Part of me likes this, and hates the inconsistencies of the older editions, and the other part cringes at the problems it causes for trying to make your own stuff... The complexity of the rules in 3e isn't a bad thing, it's just something to consider when the conversions are made. Classic D&D, to me, is much more suited to a loose, non-exact style of DMing. Well said! Classic D&D and AD&D1 also have, IMO, a much more assumed theme that casts the PCs in a more stereotypical heroic role, where AD&D2 and 3e have shifted more toward endorsing antiheroes, but that's another topic for another day. This fits with my understanding of Classic/1E vs. 2E, but I see the style of 3E more similar to the former group than the latter. This is probably a realm of high subjectivity however, and as you say probably a topic for another day. PS: None of the above is meant to feed the Troll... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Steel Rabbit Date : 04-26-06 02:16 PM I used to be really into AD&D 2nd Edition. So into it, in fact, that I didn't even play with the updated black books, I kept to the blue logo books. It's fun to go back and look at all the old stuff from time to time but I actually think V3 (and 3.5 if you want to get nitpicky) is much better than any version of D&D I've played. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : wrexham3 Date : 05-01-06 02:00 PM I'm sorta like Mr.VanderMeer. Nowadays I mostlty play 3.5E, though I play it in a rules light way, ignoring much of the add-on rules. I play a stripped down version of 3.0/3.5, ignoring a lot of the more fiddly stuff in favour of ease of play. I've played D&D and AD&D in most of its incarnations since 1984 and I have to say 3.0/3.5 is my favourite - I like the fact that 'To Hit', Armour Class and Saving Throws are essentially the same mechanic, which cuts down all the fiddling around with tables. I also prefer a proper skills system to Proficencies. The new version seems to blend aspects of both AD&D and Runequest II, which was what me and my friends attempted to do back in the mid-eighties. There's plenty I dont like about the new version - the fiddly combat mechanics, over-powerful feats and most especially the plethora of ridiculous prestige classes, but if I dont like it I either ignore it or wont allow it. But overall 3.0/3.5 fits my campaign. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : Pardu Date : 05-02-06 11:16 AM I play 1st ed AD&D with Unearthed Arcana and the survival guides. I use Original D&D to play with my kids (they are 6 and 9 ). I have been playing since '83 and stopped after I went off to collage. I have got a set of 3.5 core rules on order. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : goblin_gronth Date : 05-02-06 08:09 PM I used to be really into AD&D 2nd Edition. So into it, in fact, that I didn't even play with the updated black books, I kept to the blue logo books. It's fun to go back and look at all the old stuff from time to time but I actually think V3 (and 3.5 if you want to get nitpicky) is much better than any version of D&D I've played. Im much the same way. I have played mostly 2nd edition with alot of the 1st edition books used in our game play also. I still really enjoy playing 2nd edition. I do like 3.0/3.5 though and we are looking in reformating our play to bring in the new rules and game play in. Still not sure though if we will keep it mostly 2nd with some 3.5 or move into mostly 3.5. Im running 3.5 and my brother in law is still running 1st and 2nd edition. Its fun to use them all and go back and forth. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : JRRNeiklot Date : 05-05-06 04:53 PM Currently, I'm playing in a 3.11 for workgroups game, but I'd stampede women and rape cattle for a good 'ol 1e game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : diaglo Date : 05-08-06 08:14 AM Currently, I'm playing in a 3.11 for workgroups game, but I'd stampede women and rape cattle for a good 'ol 1e game. ditto that. but even more importantly. i'd help the women heal and butcher the cattle for OD&D(1974) game. i'm currently refereeing an OD&D(1974) campaign. read my sig if you want my true opinion on the matter of editions. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : BinaryProphet Date : 05-13-06 08:28 PM I have to say that having played and DM'ed both 2e and 3.5 rather extensively, I'm sticking to 2e for a number of reasons. One is the simplicity stated above. Another is that while 3e made "realistic" (debatable, particularly without called shots) combat, it sacrificed realism in other areas. For instance, the Survival skill is only a class skill for a handful of classes (I think it's just rangers, barbarians, and druids). But what adventurer after being on the road traveling around, or crossing the wilderness to attack bands of orcs for weeks at a time would not have learned how to build a fire, even in the rain (and who decided to put tracking, discerning direction, foraging for food, and fire building in one skill anyway)? The skills system is simple, but so are proficiencies in reality. And proficiencies better mirror those things that any adventurer would or could learn, but they'll never master it, like they would with a class skill (like thief skills for example). Another issue I have with 3.5 is that it's hard to teach players who start on it to think way outside the box for character concepts, because to make that character what they want, they have to go through several levels worth of feats and skills (and maybe a prestige class). This is one of my biggest grips with 3.5. I want a dadgum first level thief swinging from the castle chandelier, and then somersaulting past the knights in plate mail, not being unable to pick locks, and having a hard time tumbling past bumbling guards. I have a lot more gripes, some of which can be found here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=613666 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : CharginCrusader Date : 05-13-06 09:32 PM Would have to go with Red and Blue Moldvay/Cook box sets as my fave. Though 1E is also a close second. I have played 3.5 and I do like it as well. It just depends on who I am gaming with, old friends we play classic and 1E, my 16 yo brother-in-law and his friends we play 3.5, though I can rope them into early editions as well. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : GregSwiffhands Date : 05-21-06 11:36 PM Heh, I feel a little out of style, I prefer 3.0 over 3.5 but generally play a mixture of them... cause I've got the 3.0 books and my friends have the 3.5 books. Oh but If I could find a DM, I'd totally play AD&D 2e again. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : gawain_viii Date : 05-22-06 01:53 AM I generally play 3.5 Realms now, because all of my players are newbies and don't know anything else... But I'm about to start a BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia game in Mystara to teach my players what Role-playing games are really all about! With that said, RC rules have the greatest simplicity, and ease/speed of play. However it is limited in options, but those limits are negated with the options provided in the RC appendix and GAZ series... But I do still like 3e, enough to convert my fav campaign world to it. Roger -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Gryllmyre Date : 05-22-06 05:24 PM I play 3.5e. In hindsight, 3.0 was iffy, especially with that hasted casting two spells a round thing. I really liked how they beefed up dragons in 2e, though. I played that version for a long time. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 05-23-06 01:03 AM I play a hybrid of '81 Basic/Expert rules and late 70's bad-ass core books....I also like Jethro Tull, Camel, Zep, Saga and Rush. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:18 AM.