| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| prespos |
Posted - 10 Dec 2005 : 17:55:12
Well Again!
hi Ed, it's me, John
what do you think of 1e as canon?
actually, i'm playtesting a slight variation on 1e (1e.UA , where UA(Gold Box) rules take precedence over 1e)
me, i see the Realms through 1e (it's my interface, if you will)
this Q goes out to everyone here : 1, 2, or 3?
prespos
toril.info
ecologyfund.com
ps. harmony |
| 2 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| scererar |
Posted - 10 Dec 2005 : 19:51:25
I think, as far as cannon goes, all three editions count. I look and use a lot of my 1e and 2e manuals and box sets, to reference geography, history, and NPC's. my comfort zone is 2E, but that is because I started with it and went through to now 3.5, which is in my set in my ways mind, more difficult to me to grasp. I want THAC0!! Game mechanics is different, in order to keep up with the times I conformed and just try to convert my old 1E and 2E stuff accordingly. All three versions have there individual pros' and con's, but in my opinion, each version improves (in general) upon the last. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Dec 2005 : 19:07:02
1E and 2E are virtually identical, rules-wise. They changed a few things in the transition, but not a lot.
Oddly enough, though I do think that 3E is better than any previous version, I think that they brought back too many 1E elements -- like each spellcasting class having its own separate spell list, and some of the classes. I think the way 2E handled classes was better (Warrior encompassing ranger, paladin, and fighter, and so on) was a better approach, and I hate the separate individual spell lists.
And none of the three editions have properly handled cantrips, in my mind. The flavor of cantrips has always been that they are minor little bits of magic, used for minor effects. They are supposed to be just little bits of magic, not proper spells.
There was an article in Dragon that handled cantrips as a (2E) proficiency; that, to me, was the best approach. |
|
|
