Quote from: daniel_ream;575753My experience is far too limited to be indicative of anything, but all the 3.x campaigns I ever played in used only the three core manuals.  By comparison, the 2E campaigns I played in used the various kits and Player's Options books, and the 2E campaigns saw many more insane and gamebreakingly bad "builds" than the 3.x campaigns.

Yes, yes, I know that 2E core + supplements vs. 3E core only isn't a "fair" comparison.  I'm not trying to be fair.  I'm pointing out that what 2E was at the end of its lifecycle seemed to me to be significantly "worse" than 3E out of the gate.

Late 2E splat was a blueprint for the 3E model. The 'Eureka!' moment when selling player upgrades piecemeal became the base model for marketing.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;575759Late 2E splat was a blueprint for the 3E model. The 'Eureka!' moment when selling player upgrades piecemeal became the base model for marketing.

Absolutely.  I mentioned in another thread that late 2e was pretty much a dry run for 3.0, and it would have turned out pretty much the same whether or not WotC had bought TSR.  AoO and several other core 3.x concepts first appeared in the Player's Option books.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;575479In OD&D and B/X you optimize by choosing the class you rolled the highest stat in. Done.

The vast majority of CharOppers in pre-2E versions of the game played spellcasters: They optimized their characters through spell selection.

Once 2E arrives, the CharOppers spread out a big because kits and proficiencies gave 'em legs across the board.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;575759Late 2E splat was a blueprint for the 3E model. The 'Eureka!' moment when selling player upgrades piecemeal became the base model for marketing.

And it wasn't a "late 2E" phenomenon. TSR's splatbooks arrived in December 1989 a few months after the core rulebooks were released.

Quote from: StormBringer;575892AoO and several other core 3.x concepts first appeared in the Player's Option books.

Although they were first grouped together under a common terminology and structure in the 2E PO supplements (the "2.5 edition"), AoO mechanics go all the way back to 1E's core rulebooks (where you'll find AoO-like mechanics for spellcasting, withdrawing, and grappling).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;575906The vast majority of CharOppers in pre-2E versions of the game played spellcasters: They optimized their characters through spell selection.

That, or they tried to convince the DMs to give them uber magic items.  

"I'm a paladin and I want my holy sword.  Who cares if I'm only level 6."

QuoteOnce 2E arrives, the CharOppers spread out a big because kits and proficiencies gave 'em legs across the board.



And it wasn't a "late 2E" phenomenon. TSR's splatbooks arrived in December 1989 a few months after the core rulebooks were released.

I think he's talking about S&P.  The Complete Kits weren't really CharOp because the benefits were very minor.  Woohoo, you got a whole +1 to hit with a bow because you chose the archer kit.  In the grand scheme of things, a +1 bonus total wasn't all that impactful.  The Bladesinger was one of the only really CharOP classes out there.

But when S&P came out?  Wow.  CharOp heaven.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;575906Although they were first grouped together under a common terminology and structure in the 2E PO supplements (the "2.5 edition"), AoO mechanics go all the way back to 1E's core rulebooks (where you'll find AoO-like mechanics for spellcasting, withdrawing, and grappling).

We've been over this.  No, they weren't "AoO-like".  If you turned your back and ran, the attacker would get a free attack.  That's it.  That's all it was.

An Attack of Opportunity is a 'free attack'.  

It's a 'free attack' because your opponent does something that doesn't let them defend themselves.  Like casting a spell or turning their back on the enemy.

3.x tended to standardize a lot of rules and give them names.  The free attack when someone casts a spell next to you is very similar to the free attack you get when someone turns their back on you.  Giving them a name and building some commonalities between them isn't a bad thing.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575945An Attack of Opportunity is a 'free attack'.

Wrong.

QuoteIt's a 'free attack' because your opponent does something that doesn't let them defend themselves.  Like casting a spell or turning their back on the enemy.

Also wrong.

Quote3.x tended to standardize a lot of rules and give them names.  The free attack when someone casts a spell next to you is very similar to the free attack you get when someone turns their back on you.  Giving them a name and building some commonalities between them isn't a bad thing.

You don't get a 'free attack' on a spell caster in AD&D.  Stick to the version you know.

"Attack of Opportunity" is a very specific mechanic.  It's not just a 'free attack' because you want the widest possible definition so you can claim a similarity between 1st edition and 3.x.  Only very specific actions will trigger an Attack of Opportunity; no such requirements are present in AD&D, nor is there a mechanic that provides a use for those requirements.

Quote from: StormBringer;575952"Attack of Opportunity" is a very specific mechanic.  It's not just a 'free attack' because you want the widest possible definition so you can claim a similarity between 1st edition and 3.x.  Only very specific actions will trigger an Attack of Opportunity; no such requirements are present in AD&D, nor is there a mechanic that provides a use for those requirements.

Moving out of a foe's space provokes an AoO. AoOs include the AD&D rule (as described; I'm not claiming familiarity) plus some other junk. These guys are talking about a similarity of category, not claiming that the rules are identical.

We had this discussion just the other day.  The only way to get an attack of opportunity in AD&D is if the attacker is coming at you unarmed and isn't skilled in unarmed combat.  And even then you don't get an extra attack, you only get to attack first.  Now, if the attacker then decides to turn and flee, that's when you get a free attack.

Very specific scenario, and nothing like an AoO in 3e.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575945An Attack of Opportunity is a 'free attack'.  

Quote from: StormBringer;575952Wrong.

Quote from: SRDAttacks Of Opportunity
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.

How 'bout you apologize for being a jackass and admit you were wrong on the first point.  Once we've covered that, I'll be happy to address the rest of your post.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575967How 'bout you apologize for being a jackass and admit you were wrong on the first point.  Once we've covered that, I'll be happy to address the rest of your post.

How about you begin just a single discussion in good faith, and I might consider retracting my statements.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575958nothing like an AoO in 3e.

It certainly sounds something like an attack of opportunity.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;575970It certainly sounds something like an attack of opportunity.

In 3e, in melee combat, AoO can be prompted with a lot of frequency.  Under the specific scenario that it has to happen in AD&D?  I can't recall when it's ever come up.  If it only happens 0.0001% of the combat rolls, it's so insignificant that statistically it doesn't really happen.

Quote from: Soylent Green;575329

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575264Do any other game systems have such major differences between editions?

I'm glad you asked. Let's take Gamma World.

GW 1st & 2nd edition very much old school D&D style game.
GW 3rd edition "Faserip" style system with colour coded charts
GW 4th edition mix of AD&D2e and proto D20
GW 5th edition Alternity based system with complete rethink of setting and player races.
GW 6th edition D20 based system with complete rethink of setting, tone and player races.
GW 7th edition D&D4e based system with complete rethink of setting, tone and player races.

Also, Traveller:

LBB Traveller equals the "rulings-not-rules" approach from OD&D
MegaTraveller equals maybe AD&D2, maybe 3e
Traveller: The New Era was a switch to a completely new system - it would equal an Alternity version of D&D (and it alienated a lot of Traveller players)
Marc Miller's Traveller (T4) was yet another system - it is probably as far removed as a Shadowrun or d6 version of D&D (alienating even more players)
Mongoose Traveller seems like a houseruled, streamlined retroclone of LBB and Mega
Of Traveller 5 I know nothing about

Those were the official versions of Traveller.
Then there were portings to other systems: GURPS Traveller and T20.
And Traveller 2300 which was never part of the Traveller family but still irritated some people until it was renamed 2300 AD.

Mongoose shows that, after the failing of two completely different editions, a return to the source is possible and profitable.
For all the warts Mongoose has, this lets me cling to my hopes that a decent D&D5 is possible.

B/X has a "retreat", which indicates movement out of combat over 1/2 normal move, during which attackers get +2 to hit and the retreating character is allowed no return attacks.

In AD&D, a section in the DMG called "Breaking Off From Melee" (DMG p. 70) which states that when a creature breaks off and flees the melee it "allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine."

Lets be honest these do sound a bit like AoO.......

Also in general D&D play if someone tries to dart past you in combat most DMs would let you take a swing at them if they weren't actually defending themselves. It's not called an AoO its called common sense but let's not act like nobs and pretend it never happened