Actually, your right 1E(AD&D) Fireball did have a save, 2E didn't, and 3E did again. Odd.
Um, no, 2nd Ed fireball did have a save for half. And yes, I just went and cracked open my PHB to check.
As for the shift.
I would say it makes me want to play D&D more.
I look at the classes and thats where it all is for me the paladin with her mercies and sorcerer with her bloodlines.
The pictures there make me think, these are adventures and I want to do some adventuring.
The only shift it has made for me is that it makes me want to play more.
QFT
The only shift that occurred was in my pants.
On the first pages lots of people say that Pathfinder feels to them to be more like 2nd Ed and older D&D in general. I havn't read the book, but it made me look up the pathfinder wiki, and I don't really see how it is any different from 3.5e.
Paladins and Rangers have been rewritten and there are the domains/specilizations of clerics, sorcerer, and wizards. But how would they make the game feel more like AD&D?
A lot of people got burned by 4th edition and somehow have created an illusion in their minds that Paizo is secretly setting them up for the same kind of let down. Paizo has stated publicly that their goal is to see to it that 3.5 not only survives, but thrives. So I would not worry too much about what the naysayers and the ninnying naybobs of negativity are saying. Of course, since I don't work for Paizo I could be completely off base, but something tells me I'm not.
I wouldn't put too much faith in an advertising poster as evidence of anything. Mona has said that the "thrives" was used primarily because it ryhmes with "survives".
1st edition: guys dragging green corpses and thief stealing statue's gem eye cover: save for half.
2nd Edition: Guy on a horse cover: save for half.
I don't know of any edition with a black cover and/or broken door.
What version do you have? I'm looking at the AD&D (black cover with the warrior and broken door), and it says "Save (insert empty space)".
Um, no, 2nd Ed fireball did have a save for half. And yes, I just went and cracked open my PHB to check.
It does say save for 1/2 damage in every edition that I have...sorry.
1st edition: guys dragging green corpses and thief stealing statue's gem eye cover: save for half.
2nd Edition: Guy on a horse cover: save for half.
I don't know of any edition with a black cover and/or broken door.
Never seen that either.
And all 2ed modules have Fireball as save for 1/2 damage...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/c/c0/20060213090928!AD& ;D_2nd_Edition_Player%27s_Handbook.jpg.
Your link appears to be broken; all I get is "page not found."
|
Link.
I must admit I have never seen that one.
Edit: 1995 would explain why I never saw it. I stopped gaming in 1994 and did not pick it up again until after 3rd edition came out.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/c/c0/20060213090928!AD& ;D_2nd_Edition_Player%27s_Handbook.jpg.Your link appears to be broken; all I get is "page not found."
I found it!
It is the 2nd ed revised PH, try HERE. It would say its a typo. If there was no save it would say save:none not save(blank). I still stand by my statment that every edition and 2ed module that I have seen states save for 1/2 damage.
What version do you have? I'm looking at the AD&D (black cover with the warrior and broken door), and it says "Save (insert empty space)".
Um, no, 2nd Ed fireball did have a save for half. And yes, I just went and cracked open my PHB to check.
That would be a late 2e reformat and reprinting of the 2e PH with some changes in art, mainly. And what you have there for Fireball is a genuine error. The dead give-away, aside from every other version which has save for half for fireball, is the fact that there's a blank space by the Save label. They aren't supposed to have blanks by the Save label.
|
If there was no save it would say save:none not save(blank). I still stand by my statment that every edition and 2ed module that I have seen states save for 1/2 damage.
It says Save ________, (without the _______, but that much space). If I leave it blank, the message board fills in the gap. (I think, dang now youv'e got me confussed and I don't have my book to look at (at work). It was the same entry that other no save spells had, either Save: (+ empty spaces), or Save: None, or Save: N/A.
I doubt it is a typo, because it was that way in both of my copies, which are different printings, but it's possible.
It says Save ________, (without the _______, but that much space). If I leave it blank, the message board fills in the gap. (I think, dang now youv'e got me confussed and I don't have my book to look at (at work). It was the same entry that other no save spells had, either Save: (8 empty spaces), or Save: None, or Save: N/A.
I would suggest that you reevaluate the ones with Save: <blank>. Those are probably all blank in error as well.
If there was no save it would say save:none not save(blank). I still stand by my statment that every edition and 2ed module that I have seen states save for 1/2 damage.It says Save ________, (without the _______, but that much space). If I leave it blank, the message board fills in the gap. (I think, dang now youv'e got me confussed and I don't have my book to look at (at work). It was the same entry that other no save spells had, either Save: (+ empty spaces), or Save: None, or Save: N/A.
I doubt it is a typo, because it was that way in both of my copies, whuich are different printings, but it's possible.
Its a typo. If you look at the beginning of the spells, where it details the spell entries and how they are laid out, look under saves, it says the formats they use. Save: None, or Save: N/A are the entries for no save (or no save usually needed in the case of N/A).
I don't remember, back in the day, specifically mentioning that fireball had changed from the 1st printing of 2nd edition to the revised edition, even in Dragon Magazine or similar venues. If it was done intentionally, I'm fairly certain it would have been mentioned in Dragon at the time. Then again, it wasn't long after the revised books came out that I drifted away from the hobby.
If there was no save it would say save:none not save(blank). I still stand by my statment that every edition and 2ed module that I have seen states save for 1/2 damage.It says Save ________, (without the _______, but that much space). If I leave it blank, the message board fills in the gap. (I think, dang now youv'e got me confussed and I don't have my book to look at (at work). It was the same entry that other no save spells had, either Save: (+ empty spaces), or Save: None, or Save: N/A.
I doubt it is a typo, because it was that way in both of my copies, which are different printings, but it's possible.
It's most likely a problem with the typeset or a dropped copy. IMO, it's probably that the typeset couldn't handle "1/2" as a fractional character and just skipped it. This was a problem with several printers of RPGs in the late '80s to early '90s.
Creative Director
|
If there was no save it would say save:none not save(blank). I still stand by my statment that every edition and 2ed module that I have seen states save for 1/2 damage.It says Save ________, (without the _______, but that much space). If I leave it blank, the message board fills in the gap. (I think, dang now youv'e got me confussed and I don't have my book to look at (at work). It was the same entry that other no save spells had, either Save: (+ empty spaces), or Save: None, or Save: N/A.
I doubt it is a typo, because it was that way in both of my copies, which are different printings, but it's possible.
They're typos. As someone above said, likely something to do with font issues or the like. Fireball (and most other similar spells) have always been save for half damage.
Reminds me of my all-time favorite obscure D&D typo; in the 1st edition MM2, the pyrolisk was missing a + sign from its Hit Dice. So it had 43 Hit Dice. Scary!
|
Ok, maybe I'm wrong. I don't have a problem admitting it, but I didn't intend for this to be such a topic threadjack.
I still hold that 2E spells didn't have as many Save that 3E did. I would guess the same for 1E, but I haven't gone through it to look specifically.
No, they didn't. You just happened to pick a bad example.
But spellcasting was also much easier to disrupt in 1E and 2E so when a spell went off it was more spectacular. Mages were even bigger glass cannons, though.
Also casting was a full round action mostly. You could not move at all. And ya hoped they didn't hit you wish tissuepaper or ya lost your spell. I think the 3e folks over fixed things myself, but whats done is done
|
|
Heh, what's a PHB without errors? My 2E PHB doesn't have the broadsword in the weapons table.
A one game session, we were discussing weapons that 2E had left out and I pointed out the broadsword. One of my friends said I was wrong, that it's there in the PHB, and I was quite sure it wasn't. So we both pulledout our PHBs to prove the other wrong... Apparently the broasword made it back into the PHB after the first printing.
Which is why I now hate buying first printings (not that I have a choice with PF). :D
I'd like to raise the question again:
What makes people feel that the changes to classes makes the game have a more AD&D feeling? When I look at the PF-SRD, only "niche classes" seem to have recieved substantial change.
I never bothered buying a 2E DMG; copied a couple of pages on overland travel and light sources, and used everything else from the 1E DMG, which was absolutely packed with info you never knew you never knew. The agenda for 2E seemed to be to eke out the info from 1E DMG over as many of the 'blue books' as possible.
Exactly the same here !
Heh, what's a PHB without errors? My 2E PHB doesn't have the broadsword in the weapons table.
That's funny, my 3E PHB had the same issue.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Thanks for keeping us on track, Neithan, and congratulations on your 500th post.
As some people have said here, it seems a question of balance between classes.
For example: In 2nd Edition, it was hard to persuade players to take Priest PCs, because they needed to stock up on a lot of healing and never got to cast a lot of their more interesting Priest spells. For that reason, the 3rd Edition design team deliberately made the Cleric a very attractive choice. Probably too attractive, at this date, so the Cleric's been dialed back.
Lots of small things like that.
It might also be an attitude on the part of the Paizo design team, a nostalgia for some of the kinds of adventures D&D saw in its early days. (Then again, the same could be said for the 3rd Edition design team, which included some serious nods to 1st Edition ...)
Honestly, I don't see it. To my sensibilities, AD&D produced much weaker characters at low levels, and left a great deal more of the game in the hands of the game master rather than system mechanics. (The entire skill system is evidence of that.) So, when Pathfinder PCs start out so much stronger than 3rd Edition characters, and when new rules are introduced to abstract combat a little more, I don't see a move back to earlier editions.
|
|
It might also be an attitude on the part of the Paizo design team, a nostalgia for some of the kinds of adventures D&D saw in its early days. (Then again, the same could be said for the 3rd Edition design team, which included some serious nods to RoleMaster ...)
Sorry, couldn't resist correcting that for you...
;)
I know the fighter is going to ram damage down somethings throat as long as I can keep it in range for the fighter. I also know he's going to eat up a lot of damage for me if he can get in the way (and he has good reason to want to). I can rely on the rogue, bard, and monk to pull something odd out of the bag that'll save a bad situation, and that the cleric will have something to keep us all on our feet even as he moves in to help the fighter lay down some smack.
This sounds exactly like 3.5.
I'm aware of how things changed and that you're referencing those specific changes (for example, the fighter is now better at ramming damage down monsters' throats, with +x/+x to atk/dmg with different weapon classes), but as written you're really not saying anything Pathfinder with this. Fighters deal and soak damage, rogues are tricky, clerics heal and fight...? This is exactly how it's been in 2E, 3.0, 3.5, and even 4E.
It doesn't. The Ranger was based off of Aragorn from LotR. Aragorn, (completely seperate from being a nomadic woodsman) was also uniquily adapt at fighting with two weapons as a character trait.
I don't think Tolkien knew this.
The problem comes when people ditch fluffy options due to crunch. I have a Binder player who never uses most of his spirits (drawn both from ToM and Pact Magic books), because, to quote "Charop forums say they are crap, I prefer to do 12d6 of damage instead of some silly roleplaying stuff".
No, the problem is that the players need to choose between fluffy and crunchy options, rather than being offered options that are both mechanically useful and interesting in terms of concept and description.
The problem is that picking the fluffy option won't prevent the fang dragon from draining you of 1d6 Con with every bite, nor will it help you make the DC 40+ save vs. paralysis from the kaiju carrion crawler, nor will it help you defeat the acid beetles immune to weapon damage at 1st-level, nor outrun their 30 ft. speed. It won't help against tag teams of undead knights lobbing negative energy fireballs at the party engaged in melee with other knights (who are getting healed by the negative energy, naturally), and then switching around. It won't help you spot the marilith spamming blade barriers while polymorphed into a tiny litte lizard for the size bonus to hide. These are, of course, all specific examples from Paizo's adventures.
I find it maddening that the DMs (or designers) who look down on optimization and mechanical aptitude and extol the virtues of fluff, roleplaying and concept consistently end up punishing the very people whom they'd ostensibly want to encourage. When you dismiss optimization, you don't screw the guy with no particular concept who makes a dwarf cleric 20 because that's the obvious, strong choice in 3.5; you screw the guy who wants to play the scholarly priest of unknown heritage who becomes a wandering swordsman on his quest to discover his past, and makes a half-elf cleric 4/fighter 16 with Int higher than Str or Wis, and ends up suffering defeat after defeat in Paizo's adventures because his neat concept simply doesn't apply against the monster's +45 to hit.
Punishing is a great word for every game discussion. ^^
|
|
Well the movie Aragorn was based off the third edition Ranger, come to think of it maybe Legolas as wellIt doesn't. The Ranger was based off of Aragorn from LotR. Aragorn, (completely seperate from being a nomadic woodsman) was also uniquily adapt at fighting with two weapons as a character trait.I don't think Tolkien knew this.
Having been on set during film of the LotR trilogy I don't think Peter Jackson had any 3e connection in mind for any character...
But western Fantasy is more then LotR and D&D. Lots more!
I know the fighter is going to ram damage down somethings throat as long as I can keep it in range for the fighter. I also know he's going to eat up a lot of damage for me if he can get in the way (and he has good reason to want to). I can rely on the rogue, bard, and monk to pull something odd out of the bag that'll save a bad situation, and that the cleric will have something to keep us all on our feet even as he moves in to help the fighter lay down some smack.This sounds exactly like 3.5.
I'm aware of how things changed and that you're referencing those specific changes (for example, the fighter is now better at ramming damage down monsters' throats, with +x/+x to atk/dmg with different weapon classes), but as written you're really not saying anything Pathfinder with this. Fighters deal and soak damage, rogues are tricky, clerics heal and fight...? This is exactly how it's been in 2E, 3.0, 3.5, and even 4E.
amazing how that works eh? Almost like it's a continuation of something that came before it. ;D
Punishing is a great word for every game discussion. ^^
I think it's better than pussyfooting, but you can subsitute "disincentivizing", if you prerfer, and my point is the same.
amazing how that works eh? Almost like it's a continuation of something that came before it. ;D
I just wanted to point out that say "a fighter beats things, a cleric heals" doesn't really say what Pathfinder does right or what it does wrong.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The answer to this thread is yes...
I quote 1e PHB
"Races are given advantages or limits mainly because the whole character of the game would be drastically altered if it were otherwise"
3e and above removed those limitations, well you can see my point.
S.
I don't think removed means what you think it means.
The answer to this thread is yes...
I quote 1e PHB
"Races are given advantages or limits mainly because the whole character of the game would be drastically altered if it were otherwise"
3e and above removed those limitations, well you can see my point.
S.
I don't think removed means what you think it means.
I think he means restrictions on levels and wasn't there a minimum stat for certain races?