Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nevin" data-source="post: 8153806" data-attributes="member: 7024481">no.&nbsp; Pathfinder takes all the fiddly stuff and makes it boring.&nbsp; Because of another thread i recently went back and reread a lot of the 1st edition rules.&nbsp; I was very shocked to realize that I think 1st edition, (if you follow the rules) was more balanced than any edition since. Classes leveled at different rates.&nbsp; Powerful classes leveled slower. Mages were freaking powerful, but they had almost no hitpoints, any damage interrupted a spell and it was lost forever, spells took a looooong time to memorize. You'd never get there but it would take a 20th level mage days to memorize all his spells.&nbsp; spell segments meant some spells took rounds to cast. (with the chance to interrupted with any damage)Paladins once they got a holy sword had a 50percent magic resistance to every magic of thier level that scaled up or down by 5% per level difference.Rangers and thieves were really good at getting surprise and on a perfect surprise round you could get up to 3 full combat rounds of attacks on an enemy. things like stoneskin lost charges if you got hit with a pebble, or slapped by a woman you offended.It was assumed that by 10th level, fighters would have keeps , or armies and followers, that thieves and Assassains would have guilds to call upon, that Clerical Orders would march at the request of a high level cleric.&nbsp;&nbsp; So yeah Mages were powerful but so was everyone else.&nbsp; The game assumed you'd gain power in your area with level. Every edition since has either made the game more boring and tried&nbsp; to achieve balance or made the game more unbalanced trying to get the fun back.All the fiddly stuff in pathfinder is tactical.&nbsp; It's like playing a board game with a little bit of roleplaying tacked on. All the fiddly stuff in 1st edition was the stuff you did while roleplaying and they tacked chainmail rules there for you if you wanted a little more tactical feel.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nevin, post: 8153806, member: 7024481"] no. Pathfinder takes all the fiddly stuff and makes it boring. Because of another thread i recently went back and reread a lot of the 1st edition rules. I was very shocked to realize that I think 1st edition, (if you follow the rules) was more balanced than any edition since. Classes leveled at different rates. Powerful classes leveled slower. Mages were freaking powerful, but they had almost no hitpoints, any damage interrupted a spell and it was lost forever, spells took a looooong time to memorize. You'd never get there but it would take a 20th level mage days to memorize all his spells. spell segments meant some spells took rounds to cast. (with the chance to interrupted with any damage) Paladins once they got a holy sword had a 50percent magic resistance to every magic of thier level that scaled up or down by 5% per level difference. Rangers and thieves were really good at getting surprise and on a perfect surprise round you could get up to 3 full combat rounds of attacks on an enemy. things like stoneskin lost charges if you got hit with a pebble, or slapped by a woman you offended. It was assumed that by 10th level, fighters would have keeps , or armies and followers, that thieves and Assassains would have guilds to call upon, that Clerical Orders would march at the request of a high level cleric. So yeah Mages were powerful but so was everyone else. The game assumed you'd gain power in your area with level. Every edition since has either made the game more boring and tried to achieve balance or made the game more unbalanced trying to get the fun back. All the fiddly stuff in pathfinder is tactical. It's like playing a board game with a little bit of roleplaying tacked on. All the fiddly stuff in 1st edition was the stuff you did while roleplaying and they tacked chainmail rules there for you if you wanted a little more tactical feel. [/QUOTE]

Verification