I still use 2E rules for firing into melee because I find firing into melee very stupid from personal experience. I allow a sniper feat where the attacker rolls his chance to see if he has a clear shot. If he fails the chance to hit then he knows he doesn't have a clear shot and holds his attacks. Basically it could take multiple rounds to get a clear shot. I like it. I don't like coward PC's sitting at range while the melee people get their ass kicked. It also discouraged wizard PCs from making ranged touch attacks. I just can't overcome the suspension of disbelief for firing into melee. And since most of the people I play with used to be 1E/2E or BECMI players it is generally accepted.
I would not do that to a new player without letting them know about it before the game ever starts. If I do anything that is not by the book I always let everyone know up front.
In my campaign, which is my taste, the power of the gods are not dependent on their worshippers. However, what makes a person a god is just good PR, he is a god because people think he is god. A human may attain all the powers that one would expect a god to have, but is not a god because people don't worship him or consider him a god.
I should note in my games, there are no mortal ascended gods. Most of my gods have been around since the dawn of time (or before) or are the survivors of a planet that developed intelligence when the Earth was just forming and they either evolved to be real powerful or have technology that makes them real powerful. gods fear great wyrms in my home setting. And gods can be defeated by very powerful high level PCs working together and planning real real real well.
I don't like the summoner because of flavor. They break the rules of summoning, protection from evil does not work on them ( I still like 1E PFE). I would like a summoner more focused on making pacts with the supernatural for their services.
Now, I think the Summoner could be reworked as a Golem Maker very easily flavorwise. But, I generally don't like players that want their pets to do all the work while they sit back in safety, something very evil about that for a heroic character. Summoners are basically lazy and manipulative by nature. They make very good villains in my opinion.
It amazes me that they can create a class with divine spells, combat abilities, but because they don't name it Lawful Neutral Paladin, Chaotic Good Paladin, everyone gets upset that there is no Paladin of other alignments. Personally, I think the Cleric is the Holy Warriors of the other alignments. I just think Lawful Good gets a Paladin in addition to their Clerics because the straight and narrow is a hard path to walk and good is more powerful than evil and Lawful is able to concentrate and develop power more effectively than chaos. Neutral's and Chaos lack the conviction and discipline to do and be what a Paladin is. This is all in my opinion. Now every edition has had champions of various alignments, Plethora of Paladins was a great article in Dragon Magazine. What I liked about Plethora of Paladins is that the other classes were not just clones of the Paladin with a different alignment, but they had their own unique abilities, the LE was the illrigger class and more of a thief than a warrior. All the classes were very different, the True Neutral class was a Paramander and nothing like a Paladin in abilities.
I shy away from Crossbows and Firearms because of their ridiculous rate of fire. I even DM a setting where crossbows were not invented yet because of it. Though I do allow them when I run a PF module or AP. I can't suspend the belief on it. I much preferred 2E rates of fire and the PC's normally took their shot and then pulled out a melee weapon.
The only thing I find immoral about slavery is basing it on race and/or ethnicity. Prisoners are slaves by definition, they lack freedom. The problem is we don't give our prisoners hard labor and an opportunity to prove their worth by doing productive labor, and the chance to earn their freedom. Slavery, yeah, I am very much for it.
I don't think someone would become a Paladin if they had to struggle with moral issues. Just my point of view.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Amazing, because I feel the opposite. I find good character to be the ones with the great roleplaying challenges and character development. Not the CN greedy guy who wants to kill and then wonder why the village fears him (or doesn't care).
Ross Byers wrote:
I don't have the psychological need for patterns or symmetry.
There was nothing about 2nd that I didn't enjoy and it all made sense to me. Thing is, some people were just interested in optimizing and wanted to ignore all the flavour, which was actually part of the game. "Fluff and Crunch" were not separate and you had to respect and use both. The class/race restrictions were explained if you read more than the crunch bits. Main reason being, races were not just different flavours of human. They were totally separate species that evolved from/created from totally different things. Therefore, genetic predisposition to certain alignments/personalities were understandable and that would prevent some from being certain classes. For the dwarves wizard thing, their bodies were not designed to be able to handle arcane magic and rather were able to resist it. Blame Moradin for that. I get why people didn't like THAC0 but it took me about half a session to pick it up. I wont call 3E or PF or 4th better or worse though as they are totally different games. WOTC wanted a simple game and TSR wanted a game with a lot of detail and development for immersion. However, the race/class thing did change depending on what plane those races came from. That was in the splat books in 2nd. I don't know where my elves book is but I think spelljammer elves could be paladin or something. You could always write off the race/class thing by saying your character came through planescape.
Thank You for this post.
I kind of look at pathfinder and 2E as checkers and rummy. Two different games that I enjoy for different reasons.
I am not sure that I find the skill point system any better. With nonweapon proficiencies you pretty much had a chance of success. With the skill point system you pretty much need maxed out ranks in a skill, a real high ability score, and feats to reach the DC to be successful with a skill. That's my opinion anyway.
pH unbalanced wrote:
1E Magic Resistance was mechanically similar to 3.x except the percentage magic resistance was based on an 11th level caster, magic resistance increased by 5% for every level below 11th and decreased by 5% for every level above 11th level.
2E was just a flat rate. I really prefer to this day 2E magic resistance, because I feel in 3.x and PF that magic resistance does not mean much, especially with all the ways to bypass it.
I would like 2E magic resistance, with fewer monsters having it, so that the ones that do have it are kind of special. This is an aesthetic choice for my taste. Drow were truly frightful with their high MR in 2E. These days a drow is disappointing. And spell resistance just seems to be a feature given out with a number that is designed for a level appropriate wizard (especially elven) to bypass with relative ease.
My team never played Skills and Options or used kits. We borrowed a couple rules from RC for disarming and wrestling. We allowed 1E classes, but rarely used them. We rarely played any race except human. We typically balanced the thief with better magic items. We had a rule way before Use Magic Devices that allowed thieves to operate magic items with a F/R traps percentile roll. I really liked 2E psionics handbook, I liked how the class worked, but my team was pretty much against psionics, but we would not object to someone wanting to play one. But we did not look at house rules as a bad thing, we looked at it as customizing your setting. I would like to see some rule to balance thieves (er... Rogues) by giving them better WBL and gear, they are thieves they should have the best gear and items in the game.
Charm Person does not work like that. It will not make creatures attack their allies, they will only take everything you say in the most favorable way. Shame people forget that.
There are no loop holes, only the law as written. There is no fine print only the law as written. I kind of get tired of people saying a business or person is taking advantage of a loop hole like they are dishonest. Now there are unintended consequences of laws, that does happen. And sometimes the unintended law was not unintended.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
That's because we are all used to governments making decisions for us instead of families and individuals taking the time to prepare and make informed decisions for themselves. And Yes, I said this was an extreme case, one that I would not fight for, even though I would like to have less government control in society. People do have a right to make unsafe and unhealthy decisions. People have a right to determine who is qualified to work for them.
That's a very good point. But people can make decisions on how and who will take care of them in case of an emergency when they can't make decisions. This is an extreme example. But if it was made clear to all society that they had to have such arrangements made, it might be a better alternative than what is going on in England and Canada right now. Might, I am very skeptical of this. Giving up freedom in the name of safety seems to be a slippery slope that has been causing lots of problems in the civilized world.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
If the person or family agree to the surgery knowing the surgeons lack of credentials and knowledge. I would not blame the surgeon. As long as the people agreeing to the surgery had all the facts to make the decision. It would be their choice, albeit a stupid one.
I think many of the problems could go away if they would just tax everyone the same. A flat income tax and/or sales tax and get away from invisible taxes the consumer does not see. I also thing government subsidies of the private sector should go away too. Government subsidies is just government favoritism as are taxes that apply to one industry or product and not another.
Correct assessment. But why people believe what they believe is just interesting to me.
How about this one?
Scott Betts wrote:
It has been making me very successful. But not by working 40 hours a week in an office.