ezo
Hero
Yep, a number of people (myself included) have commented as such.Heh, though you could use a 1E PC in a 2E game, so 2014/2024 is closer to the changes in 1E -> 2E than 2E -> 3E.![]()

Yep, a number of people (myself included) have commented as such.Heh, though you could use a 1E PC in a 2E game, so 2014/2024 is closer to the changes in 1E -> 2E than 2E -> 3E.![]()
I think this approach can only be cogent within a certain - campaign specific - context, where the milieu is tailored to reflect the classes and they are purposefully and mindfully grounded in the campaign world. And I don't think it can work - i.e. it is not logically tenable - with broad-remit classes such as rogues and fighters.Not for me; as that's exactly how I see them. Your class is your (current) profession - she's a plumber, he's a baker, I'm a cleric, she's a fighter. A feat or ability or spell represents some specialist training you've had along the way.
Mostly, again assuming you pick one set of rules as the default and incorporate the others, converting as needed. You could not have a 1e fighter using d6 initiative and a 2e thief using d10 initiative at the same time. Magic would need either casting time OR segments. Things like that.Heh, though you could use a 1E PC in a 2E game, so 2014/2024 is closer to the changes in 1E -> 2E than 2E -> 3E.![]()
Well, not quite; while Orcs and Hobgoblins were similar (other than their base alignments, which made a big difference in how they were played), Goblins were lower HD and couldn't use large weapons...there's other differences but I can't be arsed to look them up right now.Like it used to be for humanoids wher the only difference between stat blocks was 1 hp? Goblins had 1 more hp than kobolds, orcs had one more hp than goblins. Hobgoblins had one more hp.
Everything else was identical.
In the WotC editions where they list the 6 base stats in the statblocks, I'd expect to see differences in those stats between different species of creatures. Also there'll be differences in the specific abilities and suggested tactics of different creatures - Goblins might go more in for missile weapons and stealth* while Hobgoblins plan it all out meanwhile Orcs just face-charge everything: the WotC stat blocks and write-ups have room for all of this.Those kinds of differences you mean?
You can yell this all you like but there's some - maybe even quite a few - of us who don't and won't subscribe to this theory even if the rules say we're supposed to.Yes.
Because, and I know this seems to be hard to get across so I’ll repeat it again:
PCs and npcs are not built using the same rules.
Yes. It's called "fighter".So all fighters belong to the same profession?
You can; but for the sake of clarity you still might want to note which one you're referring to each time, if only for the benefit of those who don't have both versions to refer to.I think most people will treat it that way, but how they treat the books doesn't alter what WotC claimed about the 5e rules still being valid. That means when discussing the rules as written, I can still quote the 5e books.
Well, they did put out a free 2e-to-3e conversion guide to make forward-porting easier; which is more than I can say for the 3e-to-4e or 4e-to-5e jumps.In both cases, that was not an invitation to pick and choose, only that your old PC would function in the new ruleset (something you could not do moving from 2e to 3e, for example).
Paladin might not be the best example here, in that as they are bound to deities those deities might have set some overarching ground rules on what "paladins" can and cannot do.I think this approach can only be cogent within a certain - campaign specific - context, where the milieu is tailored to reflect the classes and they are purposefully and mindfully grounded in the campaign world. And I don't think it can work - i.e. it is not logically tenable - with broad-remit classes such as rogues and fighters.
If the only deity who has paladins is Heironeous, then having an elect order of holy knights who are granted certain supernatural boons by their devotion is not unreasonable: this is not dissimilar to the way that certain prestige classes in 3.X are assumed to work. But when you extend the ambit of "paladin" and make it a class which exists independently from a particular context (e.g. of Pelor, of Tritherion - whatever), and insist that that particular mechanical expression - "paladin" - is a sensible "thing", regardless of their religious persuasion, then you've created a logical inconsistency; you've interpolated an element - "paladin" - between the ruleset and the imagined world, and afforded it a substantiality which is unwarranted.
Clerics even more so, as one could argue some sort of investiture or ceremony (even if self-applied) is used to "welcome" a cleric into a new level or further-in circle.Wizards are another class which can be purposefully baked into the campaign setting - it does not strain credulity to have an order or clique of academically-minded, rigorously systematic magic-users who share a common methodology. But this - the "wizard as a thing" - will logically stumble the further removed it is is from the particular context in which it was established in-world. That said, I think "wizard" is the most durable and logically tenable "class is real" candidate.