Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mxyzplk" data-source="post: 5425790" data-attributes="member: 16450">I played and enjoyed 1e then 2e then 3e then Pathfinder.&nbsp; I thought each upgrade was better.&nbsp; However, in retrospect it's lost things too.&nbsp; I ran some 2e recently kinda by accident and it was very enjoyable, I <a href="http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/some-thoughts-on-2e-and-3e/" target="_blank">wrote up my thoughts on it in detail on my blog</a> afterwards. In 2e, I had added both a Perception and a Luck stat and had pushed the proficiencies to their breaking point.&nbsp; So the skill system was welcome, especially Spot and all.&nbsp; I had really wanted better multiclassing and the &quot;monsters with class levels&quot; was awesome.&nbsp; And in concept, being able to make magic items.But on the other hand, the tactical minis focus, increase in sheer rules mass, and magic item market/&quot;christmas tree effect&quot; really degraded the fun of the game.&nbsp; And set skill bonuses and consistent DCs are theoretically realistic, but the problem is that there's so many ways to boost them to have incredibly high skills (while others in your party have simply awful ones)...If I weren't playing Pathfinder, I'd be playing 2e.&nbsp; And a lot of what I like about Pathfinder is the ongoing adventure and world support; if it were just a rulebook I'd be back to 2e so I definitely feel you on that.I might add feats to it, but&nbsp; you have to be careful with that.&nbsp; In 2e, I had a player want to throw his bastard sword at a critter on a cave roof who had a fellow party member in its tentacle.&nbsp; I said &quot;OK, -4 to hit and don't make it a habit.&quot; The feat approach often causes implicit limiting - &quot;you can't do that unless you have the feat.&quot;&nbsp; So a good 2e feat - &quot;You can toss stuff like melee weapons at people better (-2 vs -4 for example.&quot;&nbsp; A bad 2e feat - &quot;You can toss your melee weapon, you can't without the feat.&quot;&nbsp; And the -2/-4 isn't necessarily good, because it generally means you have to add a &quot;anyone throwing a melee weapon does it at -4&quot;, which adds to the corpus of rules causing bloat and thus requiring the legal-book-like approach of 3.X.I've been trying to make Pathfinder a &quot;little more 2e-ey&quot; myself, which mainly just consists of not sweating the rules so much, not using minis unless absolutely necessary, and strongly exerting DM control (e.g. no, you can't just dip into prestige classes you qualify for, there are in game hoops to jump through besides just meeting numerical prereqs).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mxyzplk, post: 5425790, member: 16450"] I played and enjoyed 1e then 2e then 3e then Pathfinder. I thought each upgrade was better. However, in retrospect it's lost things too. I ran some 2e recently kinda by accident and it was very enjoyable, I [url="http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/some-thoughts-on-2e-and-3e/"]wrote up my thoughts on it in detail on my blog[/url] afterwards. In 2e, I had added both a Perception and a Luck stat and had pushed the proficiencies to their breaking point. So the skill system was welcome, especially Spot and all. I had really wanted better multiclassing and the "monsters with class levels" was awesome. And in concept, being able to make magic items. But on the other hand, the tactical minis focus, increase in sheer rules mass, and magic item market/"christmas tree effect" really degraded the fun of the game. And set skill bonuses and consistent DCs are theoretically realistic, but the problem is that there's so many ways to boost them to have incredibly high skills (while others in your party have simply awful ones)... If I weren't playing Pathfinder, I'd be playing 2e. And a lot of what I like about Pathfinder is the ongoing adventure and world support; if it were just a rulebook I'd be back to 2e so I definitely feel you on that. I might add feats to it, but you have to be careful with that. In 2e, I had a player want to throw his bastard sword at a critter on a cave roof who had a fellow party member in its tentacle. I said "OK, -4 to hit and don't make it a habit." The feat approach often causes implicit limiting - "you can't do that unless you have the feat." So a good 2e feat - "You can toss stuff like melee weapons at people better (-2 vs -4 for example." A bad 2e feat - "You can toss your melee weapon, you can't without the feat." And the -2/-4 isn't necessarily good, because it generally means you have to add a "anyone throwing a melee weapon does it at -4", which adds to the corpus of rules causing bloat and thus requiring the legal-book-like approach of 3.X. I've been trying to make Pathfinder a "little more 2e-ey" myself, which mainly just consists of not sweating the rules so much, not using minis unless absolutely necessary, and strongly exerting DM control (e.g. no, you can't just dip into prestige classes you qualify for, there are in game hoops to jump through besides just meeting numerical prereqs). [/QUOTE]

Verification