|
I would love to play but would vote no here. My home group tried first edition recently. We played it weekly for three months. Without going into all the detail let me say there is a reason why they went to second and then 3rd editions. They play better. Those of you who might think to disagree do not remember dealing with such things as weapons speeds, wizards having a single spell, and the dread initiative tie on a d6 (so it happens a lot).
I loved first ed. in the day, but 3.0 and then 3.5 and now PF are better rule systems.
|
I would vote no. To me, one interesting aspect of your concept was that one could be playing old school scenarios updated with modern rulesets and options.
I, too, loved first edition, but couldn't go back. For that matter, I loved 3.5 in its day, but can't go back now that I've experienced some of Pathfinder.
I am also a "NO" as well. I like the fluidity and flexibility of the later editions, but like some others, what caught my attention was the potential of the older adventures being updated into PF.
I would also have to vote no.
Campaign still looks really interesting, but as Zoog said the idea of "Old adventures with new rules/options" was what piqued my interest in the first place as well.
Going to go against the grain and say that I'd be keen to try both the original and 2E rules, having had no other avenue to do so.
|
|
Ugh! Sorry, gang, the last couple of weeks have been... ugh. Anyway, I'm still getting things ready, but I do have some stuff in place now at http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/old-is-new. Please feel free to take a look and post any thoughts here. I will have class information up soon, including notes on how we are going to handle reduced magic. At this time, I am thinking of simply requiring a successful DC 15 Spellcraft or Knowledge (religion) check to actually cast a spell. Simple, and not too crippling.
If I might be so presumptuous as to suggest, if you want to run low-magic but are worried about healing, perhaps use the Reserve Point system?
Also, everything I'm seeing up on that site looks awesome. Already rolling around character ideas to fit the races and setting.
Count me as a big fan of the masterwork system - it adds a lot of flavor to well-crafted items.
The constant need for generic +X magic weapons (and belts and headbands) is a peeve of mine with the 3.x and PF rules, and this should help. That said, I've no basis on which to evaluate whether it's balanced, so maybe we'll find out along the way...
Brilliant!
You may have already thought of this, and please pardon me if this is overly intrusive (I do not mean to stick my nose into your campaign design), but I recently ran across this approach to getting around the assumptions most published adventures will make about magic items (stat increases and the like).
Others (including you) may have more sophisticated opinions about this, but I offer it as food for thought - no need to respond unless you want to.
Neat! Time to start a'browsin'.
...Tomorrow. It's late.
Edit: At a quick glance, Wild Elves look neat. Dunno what class I'd wanna be though.
Also, quick question, do Alchemists count as casters for the purpose of the Spellcraft check limitation and such?
Just checking in here, because I've been browsing the Obsidian Portal page again and I'm rolling ideas around. Wild elves definitely sound really cool, and I think that for the game, I'm going to be re-tooling this alias, if you don't mind. It's the first time I've found a setting where the name seems to work since the game he was originally made for, and I'd like the chance to use the alias rather than make a new one.
Right now I'm thinking of (stereotypically) a ranger, or perhaps a survivalist rogue. Either way, though, it'd be helpful to have someone else to work with who serves as translator for the savage, xenophobic wild elf.