Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="charlesatan" data-source="post: 3225894" data-attributes="member: 20870">Everything, inevitably evolves. Even Gygax's setting, Greyhawk, evolved. Naturally, you can expect some things to change in 3E (heck, it already changed in 2E...). But with regards to archetypes and the like, it's different, certainly, but in no way diminished.Artwork also evolves. Whether 3E came out or not it would have evolved anyway. And in the end, artwork is a matter of taste. Some people loved the original Dragonlance Chronicles covers for example. I didn't. I liked the 2nd incarnation of its covers. Right now I think there's a third (didn't like it). But that's just my taste. Heck, the first Conan covers had him caucasian. It wasn't until Boris Vallejo that had the current &quot;image&quot; of Conan as this barely dressed, muscular, tan-skinned barbarian.If my lawyer did that, he/she's great. Am I expecting it? No. But having added features would seem great to me. =)Is it possible in 3E? Yes. Was it possible in versions before that? Yes. But the casual gamer hardly does it. The quadruple-threat (Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric) is the stuff of muchkinness. Can I make such a character in 3E? Yes, but with difficulty and using a wide variety of books. Most likely I'll stick to one of the basic &quot;archetypes&quot;. I can probably do a double-threat class such as an Eldritch Knight for example, but the Eldritch Knight (most of the time) doesn't have the hit points of a pure Fighter, or the spellcasting firepower/versatility of a straight-out caster. The only exception to this rule are Clerics and Druids but that's another topic entirely...Don't get me wrong, I know this is really a &quot;which version is better&quot; thread. And while I see the pros and cons of 1E and 3E, I just think that you're going about your argument wrong with citing archetypes and popular image as the reason for 1E being superior.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="charlesatan, post: 3225894, member: 20870"] Everything, inevitably evolves. Even Gygax's setting, Greyhawk, evolved. Naturally, you can expect some things to change in 3E (heck, it already changed in 2E...). But with regards to archetypes and the like, it's different, certainly, but in no way diminished. Artwork also evolves. Whether 3E came out or not it would have evolved anyway. And in the end, artwork is a matter of taste. Some people loved the original Dragonlance Chronicles covers for example. I didn't. I liked the 2nd incarnation of its covers. Right now I think there's a third (didn't like it). But that's just my taste. Heck, the first Conan covers had him caucasian. It wasn't until Boris Vallejo that had the current "image" of Conan as this barely dressed, muscular, tan-skinned barbarian. If my lawyer did that, he/she's great. Am I expecting it? No. But having added features would seem great to me. =) Is it possible in 3E? Yes. Was it possible in versions before that? Yes. But the casual gamer hardly does it. The quadruple-threat (Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric) is the stuff of muchkinness. Can I make such a character in 3E? Yes, but with difficulty and using a wide variety of books. Most likely I'll stick to one of the basic "archetypes". I can probably do a double-threat class such as an Eldritch Knight for example, but the Eldritch Knight (most of the time) doesn't have the hit points of a pure Fighter, or the spellcasting firepower/versatility of a straight-out caster. The only exception to this rule are Clerics and Druids but that's another topic entirely... Don't get me wrong, I know this is really a "which version is better" thread. And while I see the pros and cons of 1E and 3E, I just think that you're going about your argument wrong with citing archetypes and popular image as the reason for 1E being superior. [/QUOTE]

Verification