Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nevin" data-source="post: 8135315" data-attributes="member: 7024481">I'll be honest, I think 1e and 2e were far better games than pathfinder.&nbsp; I came to this recently after an argument with a good friend of mine that lead to a read through of the rules of both.&nbsp; I read through a lot of the spells and other things that people complain about in pathfinder.&nbsp; What i found was that almost everything that people complain about in pathfinder had more consequences or downsides to balance them out in 1st&nbsp; and 2e than in pathfinder.&nbsp; 1e balanced out a lot of things by lower hitpoints for mages and how they handled surprise rounds.&nbsp;&nbsp; 2e did it by trying even out some of what 1e did, and putting in the spheres for clerical magic. (one of my favorite features ever),&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 3rd just gave up on balance and the publicly stated design goal was the DM was who controlled balance and decided what was allowed.&nbsp; 3.5&nbsp; and pathfinder have been trying to balance the mess that was 3.0 ever since because of blowback from players who bought splat books DM's wouldn't let them use.&nbsp;&nbsp; I love prestige classes and a lot of features of 3.0 on.&nbsp; But the more I've been rereading 1st and 2e rules the more I realize that they were far more balanced than anything from 3.0 to 1e pathfinder.&nbsp; Assuming you use the core rules.&nbsp; Splat books in all editions have some wacky stuff.I'd like to see some of the magical reductions rolled back.&nbsp; I'm not sure on this but I'm starting to lean towards different experience point curves for different classes.&nbsp; If every class is different then it shouldn't be a big deal if some classes gain levels faster.&nbsp; it also mitigates the High level spellcaster issues, if warrior based classes level faster.&nbsp; I'd like&nbsp; Surprise rounds to become more deadly, I think full Magic using classes should have less hit points.&nbsp; I think casting while being physically attacked in combat should be very difficult.&nbsp; I generally play casters and I'd be ok with the old 1e you lose your spell if you get hit at all, that solves most of the overpowered mage arguments, because then an adventuring mage by themselves are monster food.&nbsp; And please don't try to nerf magic for the 4th time.&nbsp; Do that and I'm out.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd like to see a game where the melee is punished for not protecting thier spellcasters and the spellcasters suffer if they end up in melee. Things like that encourage&nbsp; teamwork.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd also love to see a more workable crafting system that doesn't punish players for being crafters. No edition has ever had that. and Please fix the stupidity of Staffs in 1e.&nbsp; Cost benefit analysis for staffs is that they are always better sold to buy other resources.&nbsp; They are too expensive, too expensive to charge, too much time to charge.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nevin, post: 8135315, member: 7024481"] I'll be honest, I think 1e and 2e were far better games than pathfinder. I came to this recently after an argument with a good friend of mine that lead to a read through of the rules of both. I read through a lot of the spells and other things that people complain about in pathfinder. What i found was that almost everything that people complain about in pathfinder had more consequences or downsides to balance them out in 1st and 2e than in pathfinder. 1e balanced out a lot of things by lower hitpoints for mages and how they handled surprise rounds. 2e did it by trying even out some of what 1e did, and putting in the spheres for clerical magic. (one of my favorite features ever), 3rd just gave up on balance and the publicly stated design goal was the DM was who controlled balance and decided what was allowed. 3.5 and pathfinder have been trying to balance the mess that was 3.0 ever since because of blowback from players who bought splat books DM's wouldn't let them use. I love prestige classes and a lot of features of 3.0 on. But the more I've been rereading 1st and 2e rules the more I realize that they were far more balanced than anything from 3.0 to 1e pathfinder. Assuming you use the core rules. Splat books in all editions have some wacky stuff. I'd like to see some of the magical reductions rolled back. I'm not sure on this but I'm starting to lean towards different experience point curves for different classes. If every class is different then it shouldn't be a big deal if some classes gain levels faster. it also mitigates the High level spellcaster issues, if warrior based classes level faster. I'd like Surprise rounds to become more deadly, I think full Magic using classes should have less hit points. I think casting while being physically attacked in combat should be very difficult. I generally play casters and I'd be ok with the old 1e you lose your spell if you get hit at all, that solves most of the overpowered mage arguments, because then an adventuring mage by themselves are monster food. And please don't try to nerf magic for the 4th time. Do that and I'm out. I'd like to see a game where the melee is punished for not protecting thier spellcasters and the spellcasters suffer if they end up in melee. Things like that encourage teamwork. I'd also love to see a more workable crafting system that doesn't punish players for being crafters. No edition has ever had that. and Please fix the stupidity of Staffs in 1e. Cost benefit analysis for staffs is that they are always better sold to buy other resources. They are too expensive, too expensive to charge, too much time to charge. [/QUOTE]

Verification