My second oldest and most played character was a storm giant. It was 1st edition AD&D but if it had been pathfinder he would of been a brawler. as it was he was a fighter that eventually took levels in psion (or the equivalent anyways their was some house ruling involved.) I used to love it when other giants would throw rocks at us. the deflection of the occasional ballista was fun too.
High-level superheroes everywhere: lore implications for the "post-adventure-path cinematic universe"
If Pathfinder 1 classes are eventually trickled back into second edition, which do you hope return first?
Like if we are talking 1st D&D they were really more like a cavalier with extra stuff maybe that's what he means?
Oh yeah a fighter in D&D 1st editon was great until the wizard came into power then it was all about magic.
At low levels figther could be a bit rocket taggy in that they tended to kill and be killed with in one strike for a little bit, but it wasn't as guaranteed as high level casters.
The way to survive and I had a 14th level fighter in 1st which is like a 20+ toon in 3rd the trick was to get as many magic items as you could to help you survive the doom magic.
You do realize that a gaming system comes out its out forever. My old DM still plays 1st edition D&D. It only drys up when you let it.
That is how we did it in 1st edition D&D but since people tend to have their own individual initiative modifier it seems wrong in later editions. plus it invalidates some feats and class features.
You forgot comeliness!
You know what is legitimately weird. I've noticed people that have startd out on odd editions of D&D tend to like favor the odds more then the evens and vice versa. So for example I started out on 1st edition and really like 3rd edition and I am ok with some of the design choices for 5th. While People I've met who started on 2nd edition didn't care as much for 3rd but liked 4th.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
1st edition AD&D 12th level Paladin 200 soldiers.
I think in the 1st edition books they were by level.. but they had other problems.
Hey now I may not know second but I know 1st. I never could get my DM to update so we just stopped playing with him eventually (there were other reasons). I wasn't saying the favored enemy changed in 3.5 just the combat style options. 3.0 had that thing where if you took one level of ranger you automatically gained all the two weapon feats and as long as you kept perform up your 1 level of bard would give you all the performances too. So that was probably a good call changing that and making them lighter too more skills etc.
That sounds good to me sonny.
There is good reason not to use some of those rules. Are you familiar with the chart that modifies different weapon attack bonuses based on the armor class of the person your attacking? for example a pick axe would get a high bonus against higher ac's while say a whip would get bonuses vrs lower ac's however the chart was kind of all over the place.
Weather Report wrote:
In a way I suppose but there was quite a bit that was left up to the DM to decide in 1st. You had to make things up quite often for unusual circumstances. I'll admit the actual rules are very similar but the feel of playing the game reminded me a lot more of 1st then 3rd. Which I suppose is that rules light part mostly. It had class and spells rules but very little on the environment and achieving tasks and knowledge stuff rules. I know a lot of time we ended up just saying make a stat check.
To me it felt more like playing 1st edition then it did 3rd edition. Maybe because they were both so rules light and didn't really that many class options. Granted right no THACO (I think at that point It wasn't even true THACO really but the idea was there) and matrices but the simple game play aspect made me think of 1st edition far more so then 3rd.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:
Are you referring to the item restrictions they had? I believe it was 4 weapons a shield an armor and 4 misc magic items. I might be forgetting one or 2.
Just for informational purposes the 1st edition D&D barbarian did in fact have a similar mechanic. In fact barbarians could not use magic items starting out and could gradually as they level be allowed to use magic items. They would destroy most magic on sight and had bitter and typically dangerous relationships with spell casters (dangerous for the spell caster!)
Milo v3 wrote:
I always heard the original monk was based on David Caridines character from Kung Fu. I think the characters name was Kwai Chang Caine.
that would make sense if it wasn't for the fact its been its own class almost sense conception (granted at one point it was almost like a archetype for cavalier but I digress)
N N 959 wrote:
1.I'm sorry but have you seen the low level ranger spells in 1st they weren't that helpful.
2.What does that have to do with anything? but since you don't know the original Clerics in original D&D were partly inspired by the medieval chivalric orders such as the Templars and Hospitallers. These were effectively warrior monks. Their spells are heavily taken from the bible.
incidentally ranger was literally originally made with Aragorn as the original example hence why favored enemy used to be just bonuses vrs orcs and goblinoids