| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[I get the feeling you never actually played much 4e. "No one ever dies"? I played 4e for about 2 years, I saw players die, I saw players get close to dying a lot more often - and that's with a system where you can do some really crazy things with item synergy. It is a lot harder to die in 4E, but you certainly aren't anywhere close to being invincible (especially since 4E did away with a lot of super powerful spells casters could use to make themselves ACTUALLY invincible)
And the Wizard being as competent as a Fighter is a feature. 4E actually did what no version of DnD ever did before it, which was eliminate the problem of Linear Warrior Quadratic Wizard.
It sometimes seems obligatory, in any discussion of two completely different RPGs, for someone to opine that 4E sucks. I'm surprised it took that long, to be honest. :/
A whole bunch of stuff
To sum up:
Yes, I know what the rules were. Yes, we played it correctly. No, I did not get my 2E PHP out of storage to find the exact number of attacks Stoneskin blocks at 7th level.
The wizard still is basically immune to being surprised and destroyed by a strong melee combatant ever again at level 7. Even a 20th level rogue has basically no chance of killing a wizard.
(Yes, you can beat it by having a large number of people surprise the wizard.)
And this is just one spell. The reasons wizard, played well, is utterly dominant is a long list. I'm just giving you a single example of something even the people who designed core 3E -- people who were intentionally trying, as per Monte Cook (one of the three designers) to put strong and weak options into the game so players could feel clever for finding the strong ones -- would not have put into the game because it was so obviously a bad idea.
The better your players get at 2E, the better the wizard gets and the less its supposed shortcomings matter. Conversely there's no amount of system mastery that makes the 2E rogue or fighter competitive with them past very low levels. This is doubly true if you did something crazy like actually roll for stats as outlined in the rules.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get the feeling you never actually played much 4e. "No one ever dies"? I played 4e for about 2 years, I saw players die, I saw players get close to dying a lot more often
I've seen a lot of characters die, but if your group has that high of a mortality rate among PLAYERS, you're doing something wrong.
|
I played 1E and 2E. 2E was an attempt to 'fix' 1E rather than being a new system.
It was such a mish-mash of sub-systems that when 3E came along it was a breath of fresh air.
I would play 2E again for a one off, but would never choose to go back to it as a regular system. There were so many rules arguments that couldn't be resolved due to slack wording. Here's one example: invisibility was an illusion spell. Our DM understood that to mean that your mind failed to register invisible creatures; they were not really transparent. This only became apparent when we needed to see what was on the other side of a wall, so we made it invisible. The DM said we couldn't see through it. What? Oh, you only think you can see through it!
If your 3E DM tried that, we could point to the relevant section in the rules, but the 2E DMG was no help.
This is so typical an event that around half our playing time was actually arguing time.
I played 1E and 2E. 2E was an attempt to 'fix' 1E rather than being a new system.
It was such a mish-mash of sub-systems that when 3E came along it was a breath of fresh air.
I would play 2E again for a one off, but would never choose to go back to it as a regular system. There were so many rules arguments that couldn't be resolved due to slack wording. Here's one example: invisibility was an illusion spell. Our DM understood that to mean that your mind failed to register invisible creatures; they were not really transparent. This only became apparent when we needed to see what was on the other side of a wall, so we made it invisible. The DM said we couldn't see through it. What? Oh, you only think you can see through it!
If your 3E DM tried that, we could point to the relevant section in the rules, but the 2E DMG was no help.
This is so typical an event that around half our playing time was actually arguing time.
It is even worse at the higher levels and magic becomes much more broken, than in Pathfinder.
Immunity vs non-magic weapons, vs magic weapons, a barely defined wish spell...
Full caster were never intended to level up at the same speed as non-casters, it is why there is such an imbalance in 3.x and Pathfinder because the 'streamlined' experience gain.
this is incorrect.
at mid levels, the wizard advances faster then any other class.
To level 11, the Druid is faster then ANYONE.
The melee classes, if you look at the xp charts, are actually the priciest in terms of xp/level until the wizard hits 12th and the druid 12+.
A wizard with stoneskin taken by surprise. You need to throw a handful of marbles at him, each 'hit' takes off a stoneskin (I,e, all of them), and then murder him with the weapon in your other hand. A weapon of speed, Girdle of giant str, and double weapon spec, you are basically guaranteed to do so at higher levels.
Stoneskin is only an impediment to things which don't know how to exploit multiple non-attacks.
The naming convention of 2E vs AD&D is a simple point.
AD&D is AD&D.
AD&D 2e is shortened to 2e. The whole reason this started was because someone said they were playing AD&D, and they weren't...they were playing 2e, and it's got different rules despite having a ton of compatibility.
It's like directly saying "I own a MUstang" without mentioning the year. AD&D has no 'year', 2e does. And there's a heap of difference between Mustangs twenty years apart, even if they are both great muscle cars and share classic features. Ditto for 1E and 2E.
So, on the internet, AD&D/1E means one thing, especially to people who played the original game, and 2E means something else. If you want to be precise, and not mislead people as to what you are talking about, that's how you phrase it.
Now, people who never played 1E may want to argue over all this. I'm not saying 2e is not AD&D 2e. But if you say 'AD&D', the default is going to be that they think you're talking about 1E, not 2E.
Be precise and understand that people have played the game a long time, and it stops misunderstandings before they start.
==+Aerlyinth
I played 1E and 2E. 2E was an attempt to 'fix' 1E rather than being a new system.
It was such a mish-mash of sub-systems that when 3E came along it was a breath of fresh air.
I would play 2E again for a one off, but would never choose to go back to it as a regular system. There were so many rules arguments that couldn't be resolved due to slack wording. Here's one example: invisibility was an illusion spell. Our DM understood that to mean that your mind failed to register invisible creatures; they were not really transparent. This only became apparent when we needed to see what was on the other side of a wall, so we made it invisible. The DM said we couldn't see through it. What? Oh, you only think you can see through it!
If your 3E DM tried that, we could point to the relevant section in the rules, but the 2E DMG was no help.
This is so typical an event that around half our playing time was actually arguing time.
It is even worse at the higher levels and magic becomes much more broken, than in Pathfinder.
Immunity vs non-magic weapons, vs magic weapons, a barely defined wish spell...
Note that many of those high level spells came with significant drawbacks. Aging 5 years per Wish meant you didn't use it unless you had to, you couldn't easily whip up things to remove years from your life. Every Haste spell took a year off your life!
Probably the single biggest change in balance was escalating spell DC's. Now, things found it harder to save at high levels, instead of progressively easier. It undercut many of the 'natural defenses' of monsters and warriors.
The second was the ease of item construction. While you could easily get a small Christmas tree effect going in 1E, 3e blew it wide open and made it easy to get access to healing effects of all kinds, while also removing most of the deleterious effects of spells and spellcasting.
I won't go into the 15+ ways melee were basically nerfed in the move from Editions.
==+Aelryinth
|
@Aerlyinth
Stop trying to say 2e isn't AD&D
My old DM and his family played OD&D, and AD&D 1e/2e. He called 2e AD&D, as such I call it that as well. It is not misleading, as it iis AD&D. The only way you can argue against someone with over 40 years of experience in what they call it, starting with OD&D, is the fact as far as I know they never played online but always in person. When we played 2e together everyone called it AD&D not 2e.
The naming convention of 2E vs AD&D is a simple point.
AD&D is AD&D.
AD&D 2e is shortened to 2e. The whole reason this started was because someone said they were playing AD&D, and they weren't...they were playing 2e, and it's got different rules despite having a ton of compatibility.
================
I have said that AT LEAST 3 times. Your willful misinterpretation of me is getting annoying.
I do not care what you call it in private conversation with people you've known for years and who understand where you are coming from. Truly.
ON THE INTERNET, the convention is that AD&D means 1E, and 2E means 2E. IF that's not what you mean, then you'll end up having to state so, because people will not know what you are actually saying.
So be precise, and avoid problems before they start.
==Aelryinth
Full caster were never intended to level up at the same speed as non-casters, it is why there is such an imbalance in 3.x and Pathfinder because the 'streamlined' experience gain.
That is definitely not it. Putting everybody on the same XP chart improved matters because defenses could be redesigned to match the increase. And they do, to a certain degree.
A far bigger problem was the design of the magic item system which included the capacity to substantially improve caster stats, something NOT in AD&D and something that strains the bejeezus out of the defensive system they came up with. And, with the rationing of magic and treasure, there was little incentive to invest in anything else.
Full caster were never intended to level up at the same speed as non-casters, it is why there is such an imbalance in 3.x and Pathfinder because the 'streamlined' experience gain.this is incorrect.
A wizard with stoneskin taken by surprise. You need to throw a handful of marbles at him, each 'hit' takes off a stoneskin (I,e, all of them), and then murder him with the weapon in your other hand. A weapon of speed, Girdle of giant str, and double weapon spec, you are basically guaranteed to do so at higher levels.
Stoneskin is only an impediment to things which don't know how to exploit multiple non-attacks.
"The spell blocks 1d4 attacks, plus one attack per two levels of of experience of the caster has achieved. This limit apples regardless of attack rolls and regardless of whether the attack was physical or magical."
If you call them non-attacks yourself you debunk your own reading of the spell. One could also consider a handful of marbles as one attack not a dozen. But yeah depending on the GM this tactic could work.
As soon as the Wizard gets Contingency this changes however. Aging is an annoying drawback indeed.
To OP: Look for cool kits if you can. They are like Archetypes. In this instance Pathifnder is closer to AD&D, than to 3.5.
Note that a Strength score below 16 won't help much. If your group doesn't track carrying capacity, you only need a strength score to be able to use certain weapons.
Constitution and Dexterity will help starting at 15.
The problem with everyone being on the same xp chart is that classes did not gain in power at the same rate as they leveled.
For instance, melee classes got better at hitting things, and a couple more tricks, better hd, better saves.
Caster classes got better at hitting things, more tricks, more HD, better saves....advanced their caster level, got more spells of low levels and new spells of higher levels.
The idea that melee classes could get benefits which caster classes could not was done away with...which resulted in casters eating up all the melee classes turf, while melees could not do the same.
Part of the balance paradigm in 1e was indeed different advancement rates, particularly at higher levels. Another was that the loot paradigm blatantly favored melee classes. It was probably unrealistic, but it was much easier to get a melee geared up then a spellcaster (and in truth, all a wizard needed was bracers of armor and a ring of prot), so the melees had a gear advantage, too.
Item construction turned that on its head, since melees couldn't make their own gear. Casters naturally made stuff for themselves first, and again tilted balance in the other direction.
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic didn't specify if he's playing 1E or 2E. We've seen two different answers because Magic wasn't clear.
Rather than turn this into an argument over which edition should be called AD&D, we should just discuss some of the information that makes those games fun and challenging.
My personal advice would be to not look at either edition as something similar to Pathfinder. Instead, treat them as their own game system. Sure, the genre is the same but the systems are different enough to not even worry about comparing them.
Also, with both 1E and 2E, you should feel more free to do things. You aren't hampered by tons of rules and modifiers like you are in Pathfinder. There is much more interpretation from the DM.
Find out which rules are used and which are ignored. Things like speed factor are often used because they are easy but weapon versus armor is often ignored because it slows down game play having to look up the table every combat.
No matter what, don't try to make the system work like Pathfinder. Roll the dice, role your character, and have fun!
A wizard with stoneskin taken by surprise. You need to throw a handful of marbles at him, each 'hit' takes off a stoneskin (I,e, all of them), and then murder him with the weapon in your other hand.
Yeah, you're not going to find a lot of DMs who would let that fly. Sorry. I saw it tried a lot of times in that era (I was a very active convention gamer at that time) and I'd estimate less than 5% success rate.
At most tables only a real attack strips a charge, although of course it does so regardless of hit roll.
A wizard with stoneskin taken by surprise. You need to throw a handful of marbles at him, each 'hit' takes off a stoneskin (I,e, all of them), and then murder him with the weapon in your other hand. A weapon of speed, Girdle of giant str, and double weapon spec, you are basically guaranteed to do so at higher levels.
Stoneskin is only an impediment to things which don't know how to exploit multiple non-attacks.
That's called abusive DMing. We would pretty much have dragged a DM like that from behind the screen and he'd never have been DM for us again.
'Hits' don't have to do damage. Ice Storm gets rid of a stoneskin because it pounds him with multiple hailstones as it does the damage. It was even pointed out in official rules.
Hurled marbles do the same thing as hailstones. If damage is a problem, make it a bucket of golf ball sized rocks. They can easily do damage, and it basically is the same thing.
But, YMMV.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abusive DM'ing is assuming Stoneskin is the be-all and end-all of protective magic, and there wasn't a cheap and easy way to get around it, if you were smart.
Of course, you could just be stupid and flail away with multiple attacks so he can kill you at leisure. My players, however, tended to be smarter then that.
YMMV. A player thinking he was invulnerable just because he had this spell was in for a rude awakening at my table. Different play styles, I guess.
==Aelryinth
'Hits' don't have to do damage. Ice Storm gets rid of a stoneskin because it pounds him with multiple hailstones as it does the damage. It was even pointed out in official rules.
Hurled marbles do the same thing as hailstones. If damage is a problem, make it a bucket of golf ball sized rocks. They can easily do damage, and it basically is the same thing.
But, YMMV.
==Aelryinth
Hits have to be actual individual attacks.
No, they don't. Cite Ice Storm, Bob. The multiple hailstones take out a Stoneskin.
If I throw six rocks at someone in a handful, they are all going to hit separately, but it's going to be a bundle of damage. It's also going to take off six from the stoneskin.
it has a vulnerability. Just generate a bunch of 'hits' and get rid of it, even if the hits would normally do little to no damage.
What you seem to be trying to say is 'smart people can't generate a bunch of hits that activate the stoneskin's threshold and use it up so they can get rid of it very quickly.'
Which is not how it was at my table. Dump a bucket of ornamental rocks on someone. There's going to be a bunch of individual hits, some will do damage, some won't. It's 'hail'. It's a 'magic missile'. It's multiple contact points coming in to deliver a hit, but all of them are the same source.
|
|
Yeah, you're not going to find a lot of DMs who would let that fly. Sorry. I saw it tried a lot of times in that era (I was a very active convention gamer at that time) and I'd estimate less than 5% success rate.A wizard with stoneskin taken by surprise. You need to throw a handful of marbles at him, each 'hit' takes off a stoneskin (I,e, all of them), and then murder him with the weapon in your other hand.
Perhaps not marbles, but darts were a weapon on the weapon chart. And they would be just as good at chewing through stoneskin.
And, as other have pointed out, if Ice Storm works, then a dozen hurled marbles ought to as well.
|
|
@Aelryinth
Sighs... fine, whatever.
Just know that I will continue to call 2nd Edition by AD&D in any threads I am a part of or make. Please accept this and don't try to tell me to use something else, as that is what AD&D is to me.
The best you will get out of me clarifying by 'AD&D 1e' and 'AD&D 2e'.
No, they don't. Cite Ice Storm, Bob. The multiple hailstones take out a Stoneskin.I'll need a cite for that. Neither of the spells say that.
it was something that TSR noted in Dragon magazine in one of the interminable articles therein. It was 25 years ago, however, but I remembered how pleased I was to see it.
Note magic missiles all arrive at one time and do collective damage, but are still considered individual attacks.
Throwing a load of rocks is basically the same thing, without being magical.
If you want to roll a bunch of dice for d2+Str, I'm kinda not in that group. That's why they just tossed a bunch of rocks at him, they did no damage, but blew the Stoneskin which couldn't tell the difference between a bunch of pebbles pitched at them and a bunch of frantic blows by combatants.
The spell wasn't that strong if you were smart. that's all it came down to. Most monsters, of course, weren't that smart.
==Aelryinth
It's also worth noting that by the wording of the spell, any attack, regardless of whether the attack roll is a success or not, strips away a layer of stoneskin.
So basically the solution to an enemy wizard that has cast stoneskin on himself it to throw a bunch of rocks in his general direction.
well, you kinda do have to believe it actually hits.... :) But touch AC wasn't a thing in 1E.
==Aelryinth
|
|
It's also worth noting that by the wording of the spell, any attack, regardless of whether the attack roll is a success or not, strips away a layer of stoneskin.
So basically the solution to an enemy wizard that has cast stoneskin on himself it to throw a bunch of rocks in his general direction.
The second statement doesn't follow from the first. Yes, any 'attack' strips a layer of stoneskin, but throwing a handful of rocks in a single throw is a single attack which would require a single attack roll to hit (if you were to attack a creature not protected by this spell) and result in a single damage roll.
I've heard people say that you could throw a handful of sand and take 30 thousand layers off the spell. B$!*&@%@. As if you'd have to make 30 thousand attack rolls!
One attack roll = one attack, no matter how many objects are involved. And the spell doesn't care how many objects are launched, only how many attacks are launched.
That said, this argument illustrates perfectly what I posted earlier, that the game is so loosely written that arguments like this are inevitable; there is no provably correct answer because the wording is so slack. This is 1st and 2nd ed all over, and after a few sessions like that you'll be praying for 3rd ed!
I'm not sure the Core rules for Pathfinder's Mirror Image are any clearer in terms of whether a bucket of marbles destroys them all or not. (I'm pretty sure they don't, but I'm not sure how I came by that knowledge.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole Stoneskin vs Marbles debate has got me puzzled. I get that one can take a reading of the rules that suggests such a tactic might work. But you're already making an assumption over a (or at least what appears to be, I never played AD&D 1st or 2nd Edition) a potential reading in the rules and then going on to make another assumption (that each marble triggers individually) to produce an effect that seems a little ridicules to envision.
Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to believe that the writers intended Stoneskin to be a spell that gets beaten by a Shrew kicking some dirt on you.
O_o
Google OSRIC. Its a 1e/2e AD&D rules retroclone that available for free.
I loved AD&D, it's quirky and strange and wonderful. I started RPGs with 2e AD&D, and delved into 1E. The 1e DMG should be required reading for every D&D fan.
Also, with both 1E and 2E, you should feel more free to do things. You aren't hampered by tons of rules and modifiers like you are in Pathfinder. There is much more interpretation from the DM.
That is adorable.
You are adorable.
You are also completely, absurdly wrong.
1st and 2nd Ed were piles upon piles of rules, even more-so than Pathfinder in a lot of ways. Beyond simple things like Classes being restricted only to certain Races, you had ability minimums for both races and classes, you had maximum ability scores for races, you had crazy BS Exceptional Strength nonsense with 18/%, a giant chart for literally all 6 stats with no rhyme or reason indicating how an 18/00 Strength affected the game more or less than an 18 Int or 18 Con, you had Non-Weapon Proficiencies, THAC0, Comeliness, etc. etc.
And all these rules were garbled messes. If you have your Nostalgia Goggles on, you can say that these were, "fun, loose, and up to interpretation!", but if you actually bother to remember what they were like, and take modern game design sensibilities into account (even using ACTUAL "loose" and "interpretable" rules systems like FATE as a basis here), you'll realize that they were just poorly written, vague, and inconsistent as hell.
1st and 2nd Edition was like the worst of the USSR - ass-tons of rules for every stinking thing, except the things you needed rules for (Oh! Hey! That's great! We can trip and grapple in combat apparently, because the rules clearly state that these are combat options, but there's NOT ONE G@#DAMN RULE FOR HOW TO ACTUALLY TRIP OR GRAPPLE SOMEONE AT ALL!!! OH THANK YOU, TSR, I TOTALLY NEEDED IN-DEPTH ANIMAL HUSBANDRY RULES, BUT WOULD NEVER WANT TO KNOW HOW TO TRIP A B*TCH!)
AD&D had a lot of seemingly arbitrary restrictions.
In 1E, a dwarf PC can only be a fighter, a thief or an assassin. If a fighter, they can't go above 9th level. (If their strength is below 17, they are limited to 7th level.) But they can rise to unlimited level as a thief. As a cleric they can reach 8th level, but only NPC dwarves can be clerics.
2E was only a little more flexible.
The Christmas tree.
I dislike that term but it serves its purpose here. This wasn't as big a deal. You won't get quite as much, you won't be filling every slot, it won't be as big a deal to have everything maxed. Since crafting was a lot harder back in the day and costs were a bit iffy you rarely if ever created or bought magic items. You found something, you used it until something better came along and you gave your old one away. Powerful gear was less important back then - my 2e Knight of Solamnia used a +2 sword for something like 10 levels and I didn't really feel I needed anything more (wanted, yes. needed, no).
This is not to say that magic items were weak or useless - some, like Laeral's Storm Armor, were a lot better in 2e than their 3e updates (immunity to fire, cold, electricity and wind effects).
I always love hearing people going "WAH! Christmas tree! I want my martial to be badass without lots of magical gear! King Arthur was badass and didn't have magical gear!"
To which I want to go, "oh, sweet god, sonny-jim, I'm about to smack you with a friggin' tome of Vulgate Cycle stories, you little snot."
Legendary martials weren't Christmas Trees, eh? Let's just LOOK at King Arthur a second here...
Arthur had:
Carnwennan, a magic dagger
Rhongowennan, a magic spear
Wynebgwrthucher, a magic shield
Goshwit, a magic helmet
Wygar, magic armor
Llen Arthyr yng Nghernyw, a magical mantle
The Scabbard of Excalibur, a magic scabbard
Pridwen, a magic ship
Clarent, the Sword in the Stone
Excalibur, the Sword of the Lake
Mordure, the Gift-Sword of the Faerie Queene
Brownsteel, a FOURTH magic sword
Chastiefol, a FIFTH magic sword
Marmiadoise, a SIXTH magic sword
This is to say nothing of the tons of magical items worn by the other Knights of the Round Table - Lancelot, Gawain, Galahad, and Percival standing out the most, having magic armor, belts, SEVERAL magic swords each, magic shields, magic rings, etc. etc.
---
Then you have other guys like Achilles, Herakles, and Diomedes who possessed several pieces of magical gear themselves.
---
The Norse deities are decked out in several pieces of magical stuff, as well, and all named.
---
Freakin' RAMA is the KING of "Too much magical stuff" - that SOB had no less than ONE HUNDRED magical things to his name, several of which could effectively lay entire battalions low with a single shot! Gotta love astras...
---
Face it, guys - martials use magical gear. It's part of the package deal, frankly.
Yes, it was much harder to obtain magical gear in 1st and 2nd Ed. Gygax himself designed it so that you COULD create magical items yourself, but barely described it and only left tiny clues strewn throughout the PHB and DMG for both players and DMs to find.
You also had gp values of magic items removed in 2nd Ed, so there's that nonsense as well (no buying stuff, guys).
3rd Ed went a long way to make magical items more user-friendly for DMs to create and Players to modify.
While it does take away from the mystique of magical items, it also makes things easier to work with and understand various levels of power.
You can still run low-magic campaigns and have Martials still be quite badass even now. You don't need all 15 of your slots filled to be kickass, or even effective.
The problem, really, is that, just like it was back in 1st Ed, a Wizard of comparable level to a Martial will, after a time, be so godlike (literally, too, sadly) that they can effectively warp reality, meaning it doesn't matter HOW decked out you are or not, it's all fairly moot because a Wizard can just pull reality-warping junk that would make The Doctor's head spin.
Pathfinder does a better job at making Martials more impressive than earlier Editions, but the unfortunate inherited fact is that 7-9th level spells just break the game much more than 1st-6th do, and that's not something even Pathfinder can fix, sadly.
I've heard people say that you could throw a handful of sand and take 30 thousand layers off the spell. B*!#!%!+. As if you'd have to make 30 thousand attack rolls!It's also worth noting that by the wording of the spell, any attack, regardless of whether the attack roll is a success or not, strips away a layer of stoneskin.
So basically the solution to an enemy wizard that has cast stoneskin on himself it to throw a bunch of rocks in his general direction.
Now I didn't play D&D until 3.0, but Malachi's got a pretty hard-to-ignore point right here.
"I can only assume the enemy arcanist has a stoneskin spell in effect, so as I move in to attack her, I'm going to kick a bunch of debris, a chunk of grass, a pebble or two, and some hard dirt right at her, stripping her of at least 3 or 4 layers, right? And Then I'll attack as if she never cast the stoneskin in the first place."
No way the spell should be that pathetically weak. That's dumb. D-U-Double M, dumb!
(Also, where are you fighting? Pebble Beach? "I lean down and grab a handful of rocks." "Uh, you come up with a handful of dirt - this isn't very rocky terrain. Do you want to spend a few actions looking for enough pebbles to make a handful?" "Ugh, no.")
As much as 2E stoneskin is stupid broken given a reasonable reading of the rules, as I mentioned when I brought it up, it's just one spell. So let's add a second one: invisibility.
It's a second level spell that lasts literally all day unless you attack, so it's also extremely reasonable to assume our 2E wizard has it up at any time when someone wants to ambush him.
Good luck guessing where to throw darts (which actually is one of the better ways to deal with the spell as a humanoid) since there's no such thing as a Spot, Listen, or Perception skill.
And, sure, there are counter tactics for that too. But we're not even through the spells that last forever. When people make an argument that the 3E caster is best, they often assume that the caster is prepped for the encounter at hand, which in an actual game they might or might not be. In 2E with its titanic defensive/utility spell durations you always would be ready. The 2E Wizard's Handbook even basically says you're an idiot if you're walking around without a fresh Stoneskin because there's no reason that you have to.
Flat % chance for a wizard to be able to learn a new spell. Failed to learn Stoneskin? Tough luck.
Hard limit on the number of spells a wizard could have of each level in his Spellbook.
Con score limits resurrection.
System shock to even survive resurrection.
If you're not a thief, don't even think about climbing.
XP for treasure.
Good luck getting to 14th level as a druid.
Minimum stat requirements for classes.
Roll low for this, high for that, and for that low scores are good, and for this high scores are good.
Max stat of 25, but good luck getting anywhere near (unless you have hundreds of wishes).
Racial level limits (aka Elves, who live for hundreds of years, are masters of magic... except they're nowhere near as good at it as humans).
Weapon proficiencies. Or "I'm a fighter, a weapon expert, and I use a longsword... a dagger? Nope, no clue how to use one of those".
Random hit points at 1st level.
That'll do for now.
That is adorable.
You are adorable.
You are also completely, absurdly wrong.
1st and 2nd Ed were piles upon piles of rules, even more-so than Pathfinder in a lot of ways. Beyond simple things like Classes being restricted only to certain Races, you had ability minimums for both races and classes, you had maximum ability scores for races, you had crazy BS Exceptional Strength nonsense with 18/%, a giant chart for literally all 6 stats with no rhyme or reason indicating how an 18/00 Strength affected the game more or less than an 18 Int or 18 Con, you had Non-Weapon Proficiencies, THAC0, Comeliness, etc. etc.
And all these rules were garbled messes. If you have your Nostalgia Goggles on, you can say that these were, "fun, loose, and up to interpretation!", but if you actually bother to remember what they were like, and take modern game design sensibilities into account (even using ACTUAL "loose" and "interpretable" rules systems like FATE as a basis here), you'll realize that they were just poorly written, vague, and inconsistent as hell.
1st and 2nd Edition was like the worst of the USSR - ass-tons of rules for every stinking thing, except the things you needed rules for (Oh! Hey! That's great! We can trip and grapple in combat apparently, because the rules clearly state that these are combat options, but there's NOT ONE G@#DAMN RULE FOR HOW TO ACTUALLY TRIP OR GRAPPLE SOMEONE AT ALL!!! OH THANK YOU, TSR, I TOTALLY NEEDED IN-DEPTH ANIMAL HUSBANDRY RULES, BUT WOULD NEVER WANT TO KNOW HOW TO TRIP A B*TCH!)
This is where we're going to have to disagree on the amount of freedom each system allows. You are focused on some of the very valid problems but you are also ignoring the amount of freedom you actually had.
Let me give some examples in 1E:
Before the Wilderness Survival Guide and the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, how did you figure out if a character was able to live off the land? What mechanics were available tell you how well you searched a room or body? How did you figure out the properties of a magic item? How did you figure out what that mysterious potion did? What were the exact rules for magic item creation? What rules determined how much money you could make by playing the lute? Could you even play the lute? How did you determine if someone was lying to you? How well could you lie to others? This goes on and on. The GM and the players would have to come up with something they thought was reasonable.
Here's some examples for 2E:
Take another look at weapon proficiencies. If you were proficient with one weapon, you didn't have as big of a penalty for using a similar weapon. The list they give is only an example. It certainly didn't have to be followed. From the PHB: "Specific decisions about which weapons are related are left to the DM. Some likely categories are:" Which weapons are similar to a bec de corbin?
Since non weapon proficiencies were optional, if you weren't using them, how well could you swim? In rapids? In studded leather or chain mail? Carrying your buddy? Which skill did you use to make a backpack? How long does it take? If I want to fire an arrow to pin someone's arm to the wall, how do I do that?
As a GM, I found the systems gave me more freedom with encounters and treasure. There weren't any limits or guidelines. I could run a low magic or high magic campaign without having to worry too much about the monsters (some were still a problem but most weren't). I didn't have to use the same rules for the NPCs as the PCs if I didn't want to. In 3E/Pathfinder the GM is expected to follow the same rules. The previous editions allowed for more leeway without having to explain yourself as much. Even when following the same rules, the game didn't feel like it was all about who goes first in combat.
I am very glad I'm no longer playing either edition. I am very happy with Pathfinder. That doesn't mean I don't see some of the inherent problems with the system I love. I just means that I am able to look past the flaws and enjoy the game as is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The easy answer is to list what they have in common... a six stat attribute system, hit dice, and rolls to hit and damage. After that, it's all different.
There are a few other things (alignment, prepared spells, saving throws to negate spells) that are shared by the D&D family of games.
If I was listing major differences:
(1) Making characters is quick in AD&D.
(2) You're at the mercy of GM whim a lot more as there are very few guidelines for suitable enemies and equipment availability, and there are a lot of cases of 'there are no rules for this so the GM will have to make something up'.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as 2E stoneskin is stupid broken given a reasonable reading of the rules, as I mentioned when I brought it up, it's just one spell. So let's add a second one: invisibility.
It's a second level spell that lasts literally all day unless you attack, so it's also extremely reasonable to assume our 2E wizard has it up at any time when someone wants to ambush him.
If you have bad DMs or DMs who really want casters to dominate the field then it works that way. If you actually read the spell and run it the way it's listed, it doesn't:
"Items dropped or put down by the invisible creature become visible; items picked up disappear if tucked into the clothing or pouches worn by the creature."
Flour on the floor or in the air reveal the the creature. 0-level commoner trick.
If he's flying around doing nothing then he is not much of a threat unless he is summoning creatures. Anything else constitutes an attack.
"Note that the priest spells bless, chant, and prayer are not attacks for this purpose."
The last part clarifies the spell = attack definition.
Any spell, even a debuff cast at an individual or group, constitutes an attack. The wording can be better, but they do provide spells that "do not" constitute an attack for example purposes.
Good luck guessing where to throw darts (which actually is one of the better ways to deal with the spell as a humanoid) since there's no such thing as a Spot, Listen, or Perception skill.
Here is your perception check: "All highly Intelligent (Intelligence 13 or more) creatures with 10 or more Hit Dice or levels of experience have a chance to detect invisible objects (they roll saving throws vs. spell; success means they noticed the invisible object)."
That Int 13 was more viable in older editions because there were no dump stats (another bad gaming idea) - so you could easily have ANY character with a 13 Int just by virtue of rolls since 13 is not a high stat value when rolling stats.So no, not that powerful.
A good utility spell but only OP if you have (which is apparent) bad DMs with poor reading comprehension.
When people make an argument that the 3E caster is best, they often assume that the caster is prepped for the encounter at hand, which in an actual game they might or might not be. In 2E with its titanic defensive/utility spell durations you always would be ready. The 2E Wizard's Handbook even basically says you're an idiot if you're walking around without a fresh Stoneskin because there's no reason that you have to.
And again, anyone can grapple the wizard, which ignores the stoneskin and also shuts down the wizards ability to cast spells unless they are verbal. But I don't want to re-hash that one. Stoneskin has already been proven to not be the spell you originally presented and without the need of using pebbles to negate it (I would never rule that way). For what you have to spend and the ease of it coming off from any crappy attack it just isn't that good.
3e based casters are the best - they are not even playing on the same level of rules, they are playing above them. A whole set of mechanics were designed - the skill system (which is a terrible and game-able binary +X system) and then the casters just take a giant steaming one right on it - since they operate a level above. Terrible design.
3e based casters are OP, unbalanced and one of the reasons why 3e games are terribly unbalanced (and unfun). I would rather take a jumble of incoherent rules than to play a game that was written by frustrated 2e casters trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator in gaming and is fundamentally broken.
Recently went back to 2nd - some info is hard to find, some data inconstant and layout could be better but it's a 1000% better than PF just by virtue of actual game play and fun.
-------------
Legendary martials weren't Christmas Trees, eh? Let's just LOOK at King Arthur a second here...
This individual is arguing against x-mass tree affect without even understanding it (which is always fun).
Having 15 melee weapons is not x-mass tree effect. Needing six core items so you can survive due to inherent required math is x-mass tree.That isn't a 1st ed AD&D, 2nd ed AD&D or Basic D&D invention, that's 3rd ed based invention in gaming. A terrible and unforgivable one. Done.
Pathfinder does a better job at making Martials more impressive than earlier Editions,..
No, they do not. I have yet to see it. Maybe in Unchained?