Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 3995647" data-attributes="member: 29398">Speaking for 1e rather than 2e (though I suspect there is much overlap), let me try here:Could be done in any edition, though the effect on play would be much less in in 1e where AC only has a 20-point range (+10 to -10) and many magic defenses won't work with armour anyway and thus would merely serve to replace it. Yanking out the skill system for everyone except Thieves and Thief sub-classes is easy in 1e; mostly because there isn't much of one to begin with.  Doing the same in 3e is a big change with lots of ramifications. Taking thieving skills away from Thieves in any edition requires a complete class redesign. Removing magic weapons entirely does require a rethink of a lot of monsters.  Reducing things such that weapons top out at +3 instead of +5, however, is easy in 1e. PC power level is constantly changing anyway, and any DM worth her salt soon learns what the party can handle on a regular basis whatever their magic level.  Thsi one's almost irrelevant.Not everything "just works", but it's far easier to tinker with bits of 1e than 3e even if the tinkering is just experimental; things being more isolated allows experiments to not bring the whole system down if they fail.  For example, I redesigned my 1e Bards a long time ago to make them a normal class - no big deal there - and then, years later once I'd seen how 3e worked, I redesigned them again from the ground up to be essentially a feat-based class.  Did the same with Monks, too; early returns are so far so good from such run-out as they've had.  In 3e, how easily could you take a class and redesign it from the ground up sch that it both worked differently mechanically from any other class yet remained vaguely balanced and in-type?Lanefan</blockquote>

Verification