I do and i could play 3.5E but it is way to confusing.

Please leave a post saying yes or no if you play 1E.

I play all the kinds of dnd.

I have an older sister who left the 1E book behind when she went to college, along with an adventure (Can't remember the name of it now). It was pretty cool to read through and looked fun, and I'd definitly be up for trying it out.

I don't think I have ever played 1st ed but I have played 2nd and that isn't that drastically different. I know we used alot of 1st ed. stuff in our old campaigns.

I love AD&D. Like... REALLY love it. 1st Edition is great... I like 2nd Edition better, but then it had Dark Sun and Birthright. But that isn't the point. The point is... yes. I have played 1st Edition.

But finding sombody who play close to me is imposible......:(

Mmm, they need to print Birthright out for 3.5 dangit. I have all the Dark Sun stuff they have out there so far, I want Birthright though.

Imperialdeadite is right about what he said elsewhere about 2nd ed. simply being the same as 1st ed. The old material and prepackaged adventures are so easy to convert! And the rules that you thought were "changed" really aren't upon closer examination. . .

- THACO? It's just the old DM's hit matrices cut up and redistributed around to the PCs!

- Assassins? Artifacts? They're either present in 2nd ed. with less detail or under a different name (like Fiends and such).

The reason why I liked 1st & 2nd ed. so much is that it's a team effort. Everyone plays a necessary position. Third edition does away with this concept (class restrictions) in favor of "giving everyone what they want".

-PJ

Obiwanjacoby is absolutely right, if you give everyone what they want and they play as they see fit the group dynamic is shot out the window, wit racial restrictions then you have to choose both what race you want to be then what class. With the way 3rd ed goes, you choose what race best compiments your class choice and go with that, i.e. munchkining, and then you loose the feel for what the different races are like since all they are now is a different look and some numbers.

Exactly. They're panderiing to the masses! My ex-girlfriend played like that and it drove me nutz.

-PJ

Oh yeah, bards were in fact changed considerably. But the way I read it, the class was only stream-lined for better balance. The 2nd ed. bard works better IMO.

My only problem now is working out the kinks in dual-class vs. multi-class. I can justify multi-class because demihumans live longer. But dual-classed humans still have a few bugs left to work out. I wonder if they ever addressed this in Dragon magazine before 3.0 came out?

-PJ

They didn't, once they decided to be done with 2nd edition they stopped trying to make it better and left all of its unsolved issues alone while they played with the pop-culture version of a great game.

I've played each version in succession since 1977. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses. 3.5 is not alone the owner of a system allowing players to munchkin. Anyone who has a munchkin'ed PC simply doesn't have a DM with the juevos to take care of business.

I liked the flavor of the older editions. The d20 system has been so overused now for so many genres it doesn't "feel" like DnD used to, and that's a drawback.

I totally agree with roguecop, there are many loop-holes and quirks in the old system as well as the new and it only takes a gm that knows what they are doing to put a stop to any munchkin-ing.

But on the other note, I prefer the old feel of dnd, 3.5 is pretty and new and all shiny, and even fun at times. But the old stuff felt grittier and I liked it more.

Well I liked how the older versions Dm manual said the rules and stuff in here are all optional, use the ones you want to, your the DM.