1e is like 3e in the sense that they both had lots of wild-ass shit, unlike 2e.

0e is unlike 3e in the sense that while 3e tells you all the details about the wild-ass shit, in 0e you had to make up your own wild-ass shit to explain the wild-ass shit. 1e is the same, except you have some guidelines for making up wild-ass shit to explain the wild-ass shit.

In 2e, there wasn't any wild-ass shit, and the lame-ass shit wasn't allowed to kill you.

Quote from: Benoist;414399The emphasis on the dungeon, the classes representing a variety of archetypes, return of AD&D elements like the monk and the assassin compared to 2e, and so on, attention given to simulation and how you go about simulating the game world, instead of narrative/story/whatnot bulshit, so forth.

2e had all that too, with mechanics better than 1e, but not as sophisticated as 3e. Narrative elements were about equally lacking in the 3 sets of core books. There is a pretty clear progression from editions 1 to 2 to 3 in system. Gaming style in actual groups didn't really change between 1e and 2e. Oh sure, there were morons digging all the Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms rubbish but all that started in 1e.
 
Your arguments boil down to "I have positive affect for 1e and 3e but not 2e so 1 and 3 seem more similar to me."

Quote from: Benoist;414420It's all the OGL and supplements that soon came out with PrCs and all that destroyed the intent pretty much right out the gate. That's not how they're intended to be used, originally. They're not supposed to be "OMG I'm going to specialize in fire spells with this and that feat!!!" they're supposed to be about your Ranger character joining the Order of the Grey and learning survival skills from the elves. See what I mean?

I have to say that WOTC started this themselves by offering a selection of PrC's in the dungeon master's guide that were all specialist/build type classes. Maybe it's difficult to give examples of a class type that's supposed to be tailored to a DM's campaign, but offering up zero those and half a dozen build specialties like 'arcane archer' and 'shadowdancer' is setting up quite the opposite.

Also, while I did not play with a lot of 'build maniacs,' it wasn't common to see a character that was mostly of one class with one or two levels of a 'sideline' class, usually rogue or fighter. I didn't see this as a problem, mind you, but it's there, easily available, and I don't think it strengthens archetypes. More of an attempt to 'have the best of both worlds" where the assumption is archetypes, but have some latitude about how tightly you're holding to them. I thought it worked out pretty well for the most part, on its own terms. But it's not "like AD&D" in that sense.

Quote from: Cole;414435I have to say that WOTC started this themselves

Yes, they did.

Quote from: Nicephorus;4144342e had all that too

No. Read my post again.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;414425That video cracked me up.

Very underrated MC too, always been a funny guy.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;414416Okay, let's get serious for a half a tick...

One thing - and I think this is undeniable - AD&D has a clear emphasis on the character-as-archetype.  3e breaks down the archetype: I'll take a few levels of paladin, a side order of magic-user, a large 2 levels of thief, and for dessert a couple of levels of psionicsist.  Multi (and dual) classing in AD&D allowed some flexibility but what you can do in 3e just totally breaks down the whole archetype approach that AD&D has.  

Statements like this demonstrates you have no freaking clue what playing 3e was actually like. This is paranoid pre-3e-release mantra all over again.

The reality is I saw far less multi(/dual) classing in 3e than 1e. You no longer had multiclass combo tables, but the change to "levels as a zero sum resource" mades massive multiclassing very inefficient.

It's obvious that 3e is not the game you imagine it to be.

Quote from: Cole;414444Very underrated MC too...

Dude, seriously!!! Unfortunately, hip-hop is all but destroyed in this manner. Legions of fantastic emcees and DJs are unknown thanks to the sell-out nature of big-money hip-hop (as opposed to street-hop). In this I mean that the sell-out names like DMX, Wu-Tang and Fiddy Cent are known, but how many people know Slaine, Zion I, and Nesquik?

Small rant. Sorry. It just pisses me off, that's all.

-=Grim=-

Note that Pathfinder tries to address the class-dipping thing by actually making it more rewarding to stick with one class over multiclassing in zillions of them.

Quote from: GrimJesta;414448Dude, seriously!!! Unfortunately, hip-hop is all but destroyed in this manner. Legions of fantastic emcees and DJs are unknown thanks to the sell-out nature of big-money hip-hop (as opposed to street-hop). In this I mean that the sell-out names like DMX, Wu-Tang and Fiddy Cent are known, but how many people know Slaine, Zion I, and Nesquik?

Small rant. Sorry. It just pisses me off, that's all.

-=Grim=-

Hah, I don't think I have heard of Nesquik, either.

Opinions vary though. I think the whole Wu collective was one of the best artistic forces in the past 20 years of music, myself. Much like RPG editions it's good to remember that a lot of this is a matter of taste.

I do like Zion I, but then, I also ran a PC through 18 levels of Eberron and counting.

Quote from: Benoist;414449Note that Pathfinder tries to address the class-dipping thing by actually making it more rewarding to stick with one class over multiclassing in zillions of them.

In 3.e I think multiclassing is usually only a "problem" if you're really concenred with direct comparison power balance.

At the same time, in AD&D, if you have an elf F/MU/Thief who's topped out in his other 2 classes, and is really only improving at a reduced rate as a thief, this doesn't mean you now have an unplayable character either.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;414416One thing - and I think this is undeniable - AD&D has a clear emphasis on the character-as-archetype.  3e breaks down the archetype: I'll take a few levels of paladin, a side order of magic-user, a large 2 levels of thief, and for dessert a couple of levels of psionicsist.  Multi (and dual) classing in AD&D allowed some flexibility but what you can do in 3e just totally breaks down the whole archetype approach that AD&D has.  

It may look like that but in practice only a handful of player took multiple classes. The reason being the old adage "Jack of all trades, master of none" hold true even in RPGs. The same effect can be seen in skill based games like GURPS or Runequest.

Now 3.X does support Prestige Classes which a character can qualify for at higher levels. Players tend to go to the ones complimentary to their original class.

And in late 3.X there were crazy ass builds by pulling different classes from different books. But in an ordinary campaign these combos would make no sense and the referee's reaction was to disallow them.

Using just the core rules the most broken thing I found was a half-orc with straight fighter levels with max strength (starting at 18, adding racial bonues and level bonuses over time), with feats like Cleave and Great Clevee, along with swinging a great axe. The character was a damage machine and could solo creatures at much higher Challenge Rating than normal.

If you want to rant, rant about the feats which all classes got. The minmaxing of feats is something that many 3.X players did and continue to do with Pathfinder.

Quote from: Benoist;414420they're supposed to be about your Ranger character joining the Order of the Grey and learning survival skills from the elves. See what I mean?

I thought that was way cool when I first read about that and in the few 3.X campaign I ran my prestige classes were exactly that. Specialized classes reflecting on the various organizations, religions, or cultures of the Majestic Wilderlands.

Then in later 3.X books I went "What the hell happened?".

Quote from: Cole;414452I think the whole Wu collective was one of the best artistic forces in the past 20 years of music, myself.

I'm actually from Staten Island, i.e. Shaolin. I'm pretty sure it is impossible for me NOT to like Wu-Tang. But my point is that while some of the bigger artists are great, radio and print need to also pay attention to the other artists too. It just seems like they get forgotten, passed over, never getting the respect they deserve. And unlike punk and rock, there's plenty of room at the top in hip-hop.

Wait, what was this thread about again?

Quote from: GrimJesta;414462I'm actually from Staten Island, i.e. Shaolin. I'm pretty sure it is impossible for me NOT to like Wu-Tang.

*whew* that's a relief!

Everything's okay then