D&D Editions I know & 5e
Dec 19, 2012 9:38:38 GMT -8
Post by malifer on Dec 19, 2012 9:38:38 GMT -8
I briefly played Red Box D&D, but mostly 2nd Ed with a few years of 4e. I read Pathfinder when it came out but have mostly forgotten it, due mainly to not having a group play it.
Recently I started re-reading some old 2nd Ed stuff for nostalgia and one of my friends who had only played 4e started asking me questions about 2nd Ed because of the re-release of the video game Baldur's Gate which uses a modified 2nd Ed ruleset.
I hadn't read these books in 15 years, but much to my surprise I found things I really liked in them. Sure there were things I didn't like and even rules I remember specifically ignoring.
2nd Ed likes
Kits - A few of these were a munchkin's dream, but for the most part I love the added fluff and tweaks it added to a class.
One of my favorites is the Barbarian kits. A problem I have with Pathfinder and 4e is the Barbarian class is a Berserker. Here you get kits that have really neat options for playing a more primitive character not only as a fighter class, but the shaman version give you a primitive wizard type and even cleric kits for a medicine man.
And while this may give you only images of Native American Braves, the book covers Tarzan Type, Brush Tribe, and my favorite the Islander.
Non-weapon proficiencies - another optional rule that I liked.
I think I prefer this to the skill list method. Sure NWPs were not always useful, but they added a fun flavor to a character. Why not make a wizard who grew up a cobbler. You might say well that's useless to the game, but I would argue skills lists weren't necessarily a good progression of that.
I can follow the logic that most 2nd Ed players probably asked TSR what the fuck were they supposed to do with a Dwarf Fighter and the Weaving proficiency.
And so 3rd edition gave of us a list of "useful" skills, but even more players weren't sure how to use them and 4e gave us skill challenges.
It's weird I like skills, but I know my PC is not bound by them. I feel lot of newer players limit themselves to that list.
I don't really remember anyone in 2nd asking "who has the X NWP?" especially not often I as I heard "who is trained in diplomacy"
I also liked how you were encourage to create your own NWPs.
Weapon speed - Sure it's strange not to complain about AC and then want the realism of this, but I think there should be some difference for using a dagger vs a claymore besides damage. Some weapons are just made pointless other than flavor.
Weapon type vs Armor - It wasn't perfect, but it set a groundwork you could change to your liking.
2nd dislikes
THAC0 - sure it's an easy mechanic once you learn it. But it is not intuitive.
Class/Race restrictions.
Really a lot of the dice mechanics I could do without.
Obviously the expected bloat of splat books.
Alignments.
4e things I liked
Simple Mechanics.
Monster Stat Blocks were excellent. With tactics to boot.
Wizard Class simplicity.
Online tools - I like how easy it was for new player to make a character. I don't like how hard it was to make one without it.
4e things I didn't like
Every class was a damn wizard.
Too many hit points.
Pointless escalating numbers, now at level 3 you have +1 billion to hit, but the monster has AC 1.5 billion.
The minis movement.
Powers - I remember a big selling point was your fighter no longer says I hit it with my sword and at first it was cool to say I use my Double Badass Swirl of Death At-will and then maybe read the fluff text. After a few times though you fucking stopped that shit and just said my At-will attack.
Conditions - Okay he has got miserable, unkempt, perturbed, and slowed. Fuck that.
PC customization very limited.
Okay, what was the point of this rant. Well re-reading the 2nd Ed books really kind of excited me about D&D again.
However the 2nd Ed rule set does not. And while I wouldn't mind giving Pathfinder a go. It is way too rules heavy for my table group. I would play 4e with my friends but I am not running that beast.
Then I said I haven't really read the D&D Next packet in a while...
And I kind of like it now. Months ago I had given it squarely two thumbs "meh". I am now re-thinking this.
Probably wouldn't be difficult to homebrew most of things I liked about 2nd, kits from 2nd Ed into Backgrounds and Themes. And they kept some of the things I liked about 4e too.
There are things I don't like about it, but I think there is a lot less for me to house rule than if I was trying to play another edition.
Well the new playtest packet came out today and I am a interested.
So here's to hoping they come up with an AC alternative, so I don't have too. A man can dream.
Recently I started re-reading some old 2nd Ed stuff for nostalgia and one of my friends who had only played 4e started asking me questions about 2nd Ed because of the re-release of the video game Baldur's Gate which uses a modified 2nd Ed ruleset.
I hadn't read these books in 15 years, but much to my surprise I found things I really liked in them. Sure there were things I didn't like and even rules I remember specifically ignoring.
2nd Ed likes
Kits - A few of these were a munchkin's dream, but for the most part I love the added fluff and tweaks it added to a class.
One of my favorites is the Barbarian kits. A problem I have with Pathfinder and 4e is the Barbarian class is a Berserker. Here you get kits that have really neat options for playing a more primitive character not only as a fighter class, but the shaman version give you a primitive wizard type and even cleric kits for a medicine man.
And while this may give you only images of Native American Braves, the book covers Tarzan Type, Brush Tribe, and my favorite the Islander.
Non-weapon proficiencies - another optional rule that I liked.
I think I prefer this to the skill list method. Sure NWPs were not always useful, but they added a fun flavor to a character. Why not make a wizard who grew up a cobbler. You might say well that's useless to the game, but I would argue skills lists weren't necessarily a good progression of that.
I can follow the logic that most 2nd Ed players probably asked TSR what the fuck were they supposed to do with a Dwarf Fighter and the Weaving proficiency.
And so 3rd edition gave of us a list of "useful" skills, but even more players weren't sure how to use them and 4e gave us skill challenges.
It's weird I like skills, but I know my PC is not bound by them. I feel lot of newer players limit themselves to that list.
I don't really remember anyone in 2nd asking "who has the X NWP?" especially not often I as I heard "who is trained in diplomacy"
I also liked how you were encourage to create your own NWPs.
Weapon speed - Sure it's strange not to complain about AC and then want the realism of this, but I think there should be some difference for using a dagger vs a claymore besides damage. Some weapons are just made pointless other than flavor.
Weapon type vs Armor - It wasn't perfect, but it set a groundwork you could change to your liking.
2nd dislikes
THAC0 - sure it's an easy mechanic once you learn it. But it is not intuitive.
Class/Race restrictions.
Really a lot of the dice mechanics I could do without.
Obviously the expected bloat of splat books.
Alignments.
4e things I liked
Simple Mechanics.
Monster Stat Blocks were excellent. With tactics to boot.
Wizard Class simplicity.
Online tools - I like how easy it was for new player to make a character. I don't like how hard it was to make one without it.
4e things I didn't like
Every class was a damn wizard.
Too many hit points.
Pointless escalating numbers, now at level 3 you have +1 billion to hit, but the monster has AC 1.5 billion.
The minis movement.
Powers - I remember a big selling point was your fighter no longer says I hit it with my sword and at first it was cool to say I use my Double Badass Swirl of Death At-will and then maybe read the fluff text. After a few times though you fucking stopped that shit and just said my At-will attack.
Conditions - Okay he has got miserable, unkempt, perturbed, and slowed. Fuck that.
PC customization very limited.
Okay, what was the point of this rant. Well re-reading the 2nd Ed books really kind of excited me about D&D again.
However the 2nd Ed rule set does not. And while I wouldn't mind giving Pathfinder a go. It is way too rules heavy for my table group. I would play 4e with my friends but I am not running that beast.
Then I said I haven't really read the D&D Next packet in a while...
And I kind of like it now. Months ago I had given it squarely two thumbs "meh". I am now re-thinking this.
Probably wouldn't be difficult to homebrew most of things I liked about 2nd, kits from 2nd Ed into Backgrounds and Themes. And they kept some of the things I liked about 4e too.
There are things I don't like about it, but I think there is a lot less for me to house rule than if I was trying to play another edition.
Well the new playtest packet came out today and I am a interested.
So here's to hoping they come up with an AC alternative, so I don't have too. A man can dream.