Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Victim" data-source="post: 390695" data-attributes="member: 78">Re: Re: Re: AD&D First Edition inferior?Yes, saving throws were fine, because a fireball that comes from a wand is substancially different from one that a wizard casts.  A blast of fire coming from something's mouth is resisted differently from one coming from a spell, which is resisted differently from one coming from a wand - which is just the spell stored in a device. Also, spells negated by saving throws became pretty pointless at higher levels because saving throws increased while spells remained fixed.  People complain about low spells' weakness against high level enemies now, but in 1e, anything without a save modifier was worthless at high level, whether it be an 8th level spell or 1st.Yes, a fighter from the upper class is completely different from a lower class one.  The main thing a cavalier brought to the game was an overpowered class.  "Yeah, I'm like a fighter, but I'm from the elite of society, so I increase my stats every level and get additional combat bonuses.  But I have mostly trivial restrictions, so it's okay."  And there is no authenticity in a fantasy game that draws from so many contradictory sources.  A completely different system for multiclassing was needed because the initial system was so messed up.  Considering that 1e material is availible for download for about 5 bucks a book, you can't say that the "legions of fans" don't have access to it.  I doubt that WotC is losing much in sales, though.  1e fanatics wouldn't be being buying a new system anyway.  You'd either complain about the differences or not want to buy the same material.  Look at how many 1e players hate 2e, which is very much the same in most matters, and IMHO cleans up some mechanics.  For example, I think that achieving unusual distinction via modifying a base ala kits is often better than creating a completely new base class for every change.  And the change in the way ranges are calculated also seems to be an improvement.However, it would be interesting if WotC opened up previous editions for 3rd party publishers.  Simple disinterest on WotC's part might allow them to do so anyway.  IIRC, some companies produced products for 1e (Judges Guild and Mayfair role aids or something), but TSR took legal action against them.  WotC will probably be less likely to do so.1e, a thinking man's game?  The number of meaningful choices in 1e was far lower than in 3e.  Pick race, pick class, and pick a few weapon proficiencies.  Every 3 or so levels, you can pick another weapon prof.  The mechanics didn't support any combat manuevers without supplement books, so even combat had little room for meaningful thought.1e was such a thinking person's game that you had to look everything up in charts, rather than giving you formulas to work things out on your own.  I often have free time that could be used productively, but I don't have my RPG books - like in boring classes.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I can create 3e characters and even even work on HERO characters without my books, because I can remeber the underlying formulae.  However, since 1e uses arbitrary numbers placed in charts, I couldn't use that without a book.  Gamers were thought to be too stupid to be trusted with the foundation of the game.------------I have to leave, I'll come back and add stuff in an edit.I know what I'm getting into; I remember some of the old Greyhawk versus FR threads.</blockquote>

Verification