Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8308025" data-attributes="member: 5142">As an added point on this matter, I think that our memories can be self-deceptive about past editions. I get the impression, for example, that how we think of 3e as a whole and its quality also has a lot to do with Pathfinder 1. But Pathfinder 1 was not a direct port of 3.5e. PF1 made a fair share of revisions to 3e, because it was Jason Bulmahn's house rules that he had pitched to Paizo. I know there are people who do play 3.0 and 3.5, but I feel that if people were to play 3e, that Pathfinder 1 would be the likely go-to candidate for most 3e play. It's generally treated as the most well-realized form of 3e. Likewise, although Moldvay and Holmes B/X are good in their own right, the OSR B/X-based games have also shaped how we view the original iterations in hindsight. Part of the reason why we do view them more positively is because OSR went back and touched these games up. Some OSR games are direct retroclones, but others made house-rules and changes of their own. Also, there has been a tremendous amount of improvement in terms of modern writing, layout, polish, and presentation for B/X as a result of the OSR movement. OSE is a much cleaner presentation of B/X than the original. And I think that [USER=15700]@Sacrosanct[/USER]'s Chromatic Dragons project will likely be a fantastic contribution to OSR in the same vein. I would love to see what creatives could do with 4e if they also had likewise been handed the keys to the kingdom. How about the Warlord is the only class that could allow HD recovery in-combat?</blockquote>

Verification