Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9679003" data-attributes="member: 29398">The 1e Ranger is still the best Ranger, and it's not even close.&nbsp; 2e completely ruined the class and it has yet to recover.1e Thieves weren't great at low levels but by high levels they really could rock pretty good; and they got to those high levels way faster than anyone else due to the variable-by-class advancement tables (which IMO are also a very good thing).1e's non-Human multiclassing where each class advanced independently (which 2e kept) was IMO light-years better than how the WotC editions do it.That spells are a) usually very effective and b) easy to interrupt is IMO a far better risk-reward take than the modern game has.There were some elements of 1e that sucked hard, though, and I say this as a fan of the edition.&nbsp; Species-based class-level limits.&nbsp; Dual-classing in general, never mind that it was for one species only.&nbsp; Gender-based stat limits.&nbsp; Bards as a prestige class.&nbsp; Psionics as written.&nbsp; Monks as written.&nbsp; Large chunks of Unearthed Arcana.All of those, with one exception, are relatively (and in a few cases, trivially) easy to fix by houserule.&nbsp; The one exception IME is Bards; I've tried redesigning them several times to start at 1st like any other class, and have seen other peope's attempts at the same, and none of those designs have yet worked out.&nbsp; But I still don't want to drop the class outright, as there's massive potential in it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 9679003, member: 29398"] The 1e Ranger is still the best Ranger, and it's not even close. 2e completely ruined the class and it has yet to recover. 1e Thieves weren't great at low levels but by high levels they really could rock pretty good; and they got to those high levels way faster than anyone else due to the variable-by-class advancement tables (which IMO are also a very good thing). 1e's non-Human multiclassing where each class advanced independently (which 2e kept) was IMO light-years better than how the WotC editions do it. That spells are a) usually very effective and b) easy to interrupt is IMO a far better risk-reward take than the modern game has. There were some elements of 1e that sucked hard, though, and I say this as a fan of the edition. Species-based class-level limits. Dual-classing in general, never mind that it was for one species only. Gender-based stat limits. Bards as a prestige class. Psionics as written. Monks as written. Large chunks of Unearthed Arcana. All of those, with one exception, are relatively (and in a few cases, trivially) easy to fix by houserule. The one exception IME is Bards; I've tried redesigning them several times to start at 1st like any other class, and have seen other peope's attempts at the same, and none of those designs have yet worked out. But I still don't want to drop the class outright, as there's massive potential in it. [/QUOTE]

Verification