Should D&D 3.0 be considered Old School? Also Please Reprint Ultimate Magic Pocket

[Dave2]

Old School is term associated with Original D&D, Basic Expert, and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Also to some degree Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd. I have not heard anyone say that D&D 3rd and 3.5 were old school. D&D 3.0 is close to 25 years old. I believe it came out in 2000. I can remember when EN world was run by Eric Noah. My nostalgia game was 3.0 rather than AD&D or any of the other old school games. At the time AD&D and AD&D 2nd were out. I was in High school and much more into Role Master. I was never a fan of AD&D or AD&D 2nd. When I really started to play D&D was 3rd. Since it is around 25 years old. now I would consider that old school. So my preferred Old School system is 3.0/3.5 I think there are some good games based on this engine. The Without Number Games. Worlds Without Number. Stars Without Number, and Cities Without number. I also like Castles and Crusades. It has some elements of AD&D like differing experience progressions based on your class. Some classes require less experience to level. It does have allot of elements of 3.0/3.5.

However, to me the best version of 3.0/3.5 is Pathfinder. When Pathfinder 2 came out I sold all of my Pathfinder books to make room for for Pathfinder 2. I still am huge fan of Pathfinder 2 and the Remaster. I did start thinking of 3.0 games and the best one is Pathfinder. So why not get to me the best Old School game Pathfinder. The pocket editions allowed me to get physical copies again. I still have all the PDFs. I think the pocket editions was great way to get the Pathfinder books again. I saved money and shelf space. I also think they have errata incorporated into the books. Have all want except for Ultimate Magic Pocket Edition. II have not been able to find it in stock anywhere.

So Paizo please reprint Ultimate Magic Pocket.

[Arkat]

Noble Knight Games has an Ultimate Magic Pocket Edition.

[Dave2]

Thanks

David

[Diego Rossi]

There was a big playstile change between 3.0 and BECM/AD&D. 3.0 and derivatives have a more detailed and slower combat, while having a faster character progression.

The difference between D&D 5 and D&D3/Pathfinder is smaller but still noticeable. I haven't played enough Pathfinder 2 to know how large the difference is.

So Pathfinder/3rd ed. isn't Old School, but it isn't Current School either. Middle School sounds bad. You will need to find an appropriate name.

[Dave2]

I would agree that there is very big Play Style change between AD &D and AD&D 2nd and 3.0/3.5. That could also be said about Original White Box D&D and AD&D and how original was much less rules light and quicker.

I do think that maybe another category for games similar to 3.0/3.5 could make sense. Maybe something like mid school rival could work. Games like Castles & Crusades, the Without Number Series, 3.0/3.5 and Pathfinder might fit in this category.

[Andostre]

Dave2 wrote:

Maybe something like mid school rival could work. Games like Castles & Crusades, the Without Number Series,

These are referred to as OSR games. Isn't OSR "Old School Revival"? It feels wrong to give them another term.

[DungeonmasterCal]

I knew some of the Castles and Crusades guys in college, but not well. We were in a vast set of Venn diagrams of people who knew each other with other people in the fringes. A former player in my group worked for them at their headquarters print shop in Little Rock, Arkansas (25-30 miles from where I live).

As for the "middle child" naming convention, after some thought I used the conventions for the three divisions of the Stone Age (Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic). So, Old School is "Paleohedral", Castles and Crusades, D&D 3.x/PF1e are "Mesohedral", and D&D 4-5.x is "Neohedral".

I'm so freaking clever.

[Father Nihilist]

D&D 2nd Edition was released in 1989 - > 3rd Edition was released in 2000. So that's 11 Years.

It's 2025. It's been 25 years since the release of 3rd Edition D&D.

3.0 can easily be considered Old School.

With that, it is time to crumble to dust and blow away...

[Matthew Downie]

The meaning of Old School in the OSR context isn't entirely agreed upon, but it's broadly about trying to recreate the feel of 1970s RPGs (often with tidied up rules and complexity stripped out). The emphasis is on survival, not grand heroic narratives.

Matthew Finch's four pillars of OSR:

Rulings from the gamemaster are more important than rule books. Concoct a clever plan and let the gamemaster rule on it.

Player skill is more important than character abilities. Outwit the enemy, don't simply out-fight them.

Emphasize the heroic, not the superheroic. Success lies in experience, not superpowers.

Game balance is not important. If the characters meet a more powerful opponent, either think of a clever plan or run away.

Since Pathfinder is exactly the type of thing OSR is trying to get away from, calling it Old School would create confusion.

D&D 5.5e hasn't moved all that far away from Pathfinder in terms of how it plays - powerful PCs, maps with 5-foot grids, level-appropriate challenges, etc. So I'd categorise them both as Modern-D20 style.

[Dave2]

I think that the case of rulings over rules is something discussed
Quite bit in OSR. However, the case could be made that original D&D/white box had far less rules than AD&D and AD&D 2nd. They have allot more rule than BX also. So if AD&D 1 and 2nd are OSR than the case could be made that 3/3.5 are OSR in terms of rules.

I think going from Original D&D to AD&D 1 and 2 added as much rules as going from AD&D 1 and 2 to 3rd. That is just my take though. I view OSR as time thing more than an amount of rules. I think being 25 years old might make it Old School.

I also have never understood rulings over rules. At least if you have a rule goes at least you have a rules frame work to make a ruling.

I also am fan of having characters have cool things on the character sheet to inspire them.

[thenobledrake]

I've never seen a clear line between the AD&D, BECMI, and D&D 3.x games when it comes to things like "more rules." Despite the "Advanced" moniker, that version of D&D didn't actually have too much more going on in terms of rules options and interactions than the other version it ran alongside. Sure, there were a few details that were slightly more granular like how opening doors was a value based on your strength and rolled with a d20 instead of being a value based on your strength and rolled with a d6, or points where customization was more open like having race be an option so you could be a dwarf fighter, dwarf thief, dwarf cleric, or a mix of those via multi-classing rather than having to choose between standard dwarf class and the dwarf cleric class added later - but the bulk of the game, especially in the processes of running it at the table, were close enough that it could be accurately described as "table variance."

And then the change to 3.0... it had significant impacts, but not actually significantly different intentions when it comes to the general systems and playing of the game. You were assumed to be doing the same kinds of adventures and taking the same kinds of approaches to them, albeit with the assumptions on party size being about 4 instead of the prior standby of 6-10 - all of the "new school" of it being basically down to not having done a good job at "inverting" and "streamlining" the systems of the game, having poor balance quality control, and deliberately choosing to make magic more potent than it had ever been before. None of which is incompatible with "old school", and in fact a lot of the changes made were derived from how people were already house-ruling, home-brewing, or even just flat-out ignoring the game rules before that point.

Combine that with the fact that the current generation of new young gamers - the excited 12-year olds cracking open their first adventure after school with their friends like many of us did back in our own time - were born after the game went out of print, it's absolutely sensible to call it "old school" at this point.

[Waterhammer]

For me, the change to D&D 3.5 from AD&D 1st edition seemed very natural. For whatever that might mean.

[Dave2]

I would agree from BECMI to AD&D not allot added. From the 1974 original white box addition of the rules, I think quite bit was added. BECMI came after BX and was around when AD&D was out and maybe even came out around 2nd A&D. Not sure on that one though.

I like BECMI quite a bit. I would say they rules wise it has as much as AD&D maybe more. However, AD&D 2nd had allot of options with the complete books. Such as complete fighter and all the kit books. It also had several optional books toward the end that added allot toward skills and combat. So AD&D 2nd gets close to 3.0/3.5 option wise.

I do think allot was added with AD&D compared to original 1974 white box.

[thenobledrake]

Dave2 wrote:

BECMI came after BX and was around when AD&D was out and maybe even came out around 2nd A&D. Not sure on that one though.

The "red box" Basic set came out in '83 and was the 3rd major version of a basic set released. Then the BECMI product line carried on through Rules Cyclopedia in '91 and a few releases in a year or two following that.

So it started out overlapping with 1st edition AD&D releases and then ended overlapping with 2nd edition AD&D releases, ending just a bit prior to when 2nd edition saw it's black cover revisions and the Player's Option series.

[Matthew Downie]

I have an AD&D first edition DMG from 1979, and I think even Gygax agreed it had a lot of complexity that should never have been added. For example, the Non-lethal and Weaponless Combat Procedures section, which has rules for pummelling, grappling and overbearing attacks, with lots of little modifiers like +5% to base score to hit per 10% height difference, -10% if opponent is braced, -10% if your opponent is wearing a gorget and helmet...

[Dave2]

To me 26 year old engine 3.0/3.5 would be old school. Most OSR folks consider the Without Number Series OSR. I think it is heavily influenced by 3.0/3.5. Same with Castles & Crusades although there is less consensus on whether or not it is OSR or not.

So if we are going to consider 25 years old falling within that time line of OSR. Than as I said above to me the best OSR is Pathfinder. I was able to pick up about 95 percent what I wanted. Bulk through pocket edition. Got full sized Hardbacks of Ultimate campaign (had it listed as paper back) got it for 17 new for great price. Then today the Mythic and unchained are coming in Hardback. Not sure those two will be done in pocket. The only thing is trying to get Ultimate Magic. Amazon has some hardback versions may try to get next month.

[Dave2]

Sorry above should be 25 not 26

[Dave2]

I was able to recently get 2 Ultimate Magic Hardcovers. So that pretty much completed the run of Pathfinder books for me. Would still like it in pocket but at least have the hardcover.