Re: A VERY positive review of 4E

David Klassen wrote:
On Mar 1, 10:03 pm, ques...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Harold Groot) wrote:
Your experiences must have been different than mine regarding the
introduction of 2E. While there were a number of changes, there were
no real difficulties if a 1E character was played in a 2E campaign (at

Only if you were keeping up with all the optional material (e.g.
Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneers/Wilderness Survival Guide,
etc.). Going from "secondary skill" to "non-weapon proficiencies"
was fairly sizable. Going from all those to-hit tables to THAC0,
and putting the onus on the player to basically keep track of what
DM's used to do with those tables was also fairly large.

Both secondary skills and non-weapon proficiencies are optional rules in AD&D Second Edition, so there is no need to change anything. Just use the secondary skills.

Changing from attack matrices to THAC0 is also trivial, since THAC0 was just a short way to work out your column in an attack matrix. You lost the detail of the repeating 20s, but otherwise you just looked at the attack matrix's AC 0 line, cross-referenced with your level, and there was your THAC0. Alternatively, you could just continue to use the old attack matrices; they were perfectly compatible.

And the first time the ranger went against a hill giant was a MAJOR
surprise to him. Oh, not to mention the HUGE changes to ranger
in and of themselves. The whole reorganization of class groups
instead of classes/sub-classes was fairly interesting too. And
bards basically got a massive reboot. How did you change over
those without massive headaches?

[...later...]

> But then, you couldn't just plop your 1e ranger, paladin, bard, monk,
> spellcaster, directly into a 2e game either.

The answer — and one specifically encouraged by TSR employees, was to mix characters of first and second edition rules if you wanted or needed to.

“In any case, no matter what you change in the AD&D game system, a
good number of us will continue to play bards. . . . and whatever
else gets axed or deleted.” —Steve Null

Please do. I anticipate that many out there will mix parts of First
and Second Editions together to get the game they want (along with a
healthy dose of DRAGON Magazine articles and other ideas). Do this!
Have fun and use your own creativity. At any rate, rest assured that
as far as TSR is concerned, anything you liked in First Edition is
legal in Second Edition. If you liked First Edition bards, they’re
legal. If you liked monks, they’re legal. Ultimately, there will be
people out there who will be playing Version 1.0, Version 1.5,
Version 2.0, and probably even Version 2.3 of the AD&D game. Perhaps
we should figure out some type of numbering system like that used on
computer programs!

A bit of accurate prognostication by Dave "Zeb" Cook in DRAGON #121, p. 13.

So you could let your existing ranger characters continue to play as they were, while requiring any new rangers (if you used that OPTIONAL class) to use the new rules. In other words, you COULD just plop any AD&D character into an AD&D Second Edition game, and it would work.

It is impossible to do that when going from AD&D Second Edition to D&D Third Edition.

The change from 2E to 3E did not keep this compatability. Characters
had to get a MAJOR overhaul when moving to 3E and the feel of those

It really depended on the character. Single-classed base-classes
really didn't change all that much. NWP's became skills and the
various +/- due to abilities changed. And going from THAC0-die=AC
to roll=AC was much easier on my players. That and going to a
system of "high roll is always the good result" was a change also
for the better. But changing them over was not that hard.

Changing from AC and THACO to BAB is a non-issue, because the latter is just a recalculation of the former. But most classes DID change in significant ways. All of the spell casters needed to completely rework their spell lists. Thieves simply had no way to convert their skills into rogue skill ranks accurately. Yeah... fighters weren't that hard to convert.

I'm sorry, but the "higher is always better" is a mnemonic for idiots and the ignorant. If you know the rules, and you can't figure out what you're supposed to roll in a given situation, go take a vacation.

Well, around here, there were. I'm sure some of those 1e folks (if
they still hang out here) will let you know.

We mostly just like to watch the Three-Eee blowhards self-destruct as their game is about to be abandoned. :)

--
David
Stardate 8168.9
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New book of high scores from Twin Galaxies
    ... taking down high scores and telling us that the scores will appear in ... The Official Video Game & Pinball Book of World Records ... Second Edition, Arcade Volume ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • New book of high scores from Twin Galaxies
    ... The Official Video Game & Pinball Book of World Records ... Second Edition, Arcade Volume ... Walter Day and Kelly R. Flewin, ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: The Art of Prolog -- 1986 vs. 1994
    ... > Prolog", since I can get it for about one-tenth the price. ... Minor grousing about the second edition: ... - the second edition's binding seems weak; the first edition is ... continuously from back to binding to front. ...
    (comp.lang.prolog)
  • Re: Major new online resource: "Medieval Lands"
    ... *one* of which has a citation. ... quite clearly that no more work would be done on the first edition and ... The interesting question is why the second edition is in preparation? ... within the first edition is not conducive to handling emergent research. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: CPU freeze
    ... Windows ME or Millenium Edition is based on the "DOS" side of the ... Microsoft tree as apposed to the NT side of the tree. ... versions of 98 (FE, First Edition, SE, Second Edition, and ME, Millenium ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.setup)