A Question for Pre 4th ed Players Regarding Classes.


 As the 4th ed players are raging over the warlord this is not the 1st time classes have been excluded from the game. I was not around for the 1st ed to 2nd ed transfer so I'm not sure if the Monk and Assassin being excluded created any major friction. I went from BECM straight to 2nd ed and the classes were later added back into 2nd ed although the assassin became a kit.

 Whatever problems 3rd ed had it made all of the 1st and 2nd ed core classes appear on release. So far it is the only version of D&D to have the Barbarian as a core class. 4th ed did eliminate classes but that may not have bene the only problem more the scale of it IDK as they nuked 5/11 3.5 classes and several races a s well which had been in the game since 1st ed such as the Gnome.

 Anyway to me core is fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric but even then only if you would be selling D&DN as a reboot of the franchise. The Paladin and Ranger have been in all ediitons and 4th ed cut the Druid an Bard both of which had been in 1st-3rd ed. So I regard those as core classes as well (outside a reboot/BECM clone). So that leaves 8 classes that if I was designing D&D any edition I would not cut at all short of selling it as a reboot.

 That leaves the Barbarian, Monk and Sorcerer which have only been core in 1 edition or 2 in the Monks case.  Cutting classes is always going to be an emotional thing but hypothetically if 4th ed had not have cut them or had maybe only cut 1-2 classes instead of 5 would it have mattered? If each edition keeps adding more classes to the game how many classes do we really need in a core book? 11, 13 15 20+? Will 7th edition try to include 13 classes+DDN and 6th eds classes? The more bloat the more likely they will do a reboot back to 4 classes one day IMHO.

 Or do we freeze the core classes at a point in time (1st-4th ed pick one) and rotate a few in and out every edition. 13 classes is getting towards the upper limit for me in terms of how many classes you need or want in a core priduct, 15 being the absolute most I would probably want with a preference for 8-10 classes and I am currently using 10 (3.5 ones minus sorcerer, mostly becuase current rules I am using lack the Sorcerer class). If the developers decide to cut a class for whatever reason maybe they need to ask the fans so to speak about it even if it is something like "Hey guys we're having problems with the assassin because of the evil alignment things and its resemblence to the Rogue, we are planning on releasing it later in a splat". 

 So basically how do you cut a class, do you want to cut a class and should they ask to cut a class?

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


 As the 4th ed players are raging over the warlord


*grabs popcorn* I can tell this is already going to be good.
I can understand why they are upset but I am more interested in the 1st to 2nd ed and 3rd to 4th ed transition.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

1E Class PHB Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Magic-User, Illusionist, Thieve, Assassin, Monk


2E Class PHB Warrior: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Wizard: Mage, Illusionist, Priest: Cleric, Druid, Rogue: Thief, Bard


3E Class PHB Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard


4E class PHB Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard

Looks like they need to include the Assasin and the Illusionist as a class.

just some numbers to give a bump


































ADnD 2nd3.54th
pages in PHB255316320
pages in the class chapter2038122
pages spent on spells110127included in class section
wizard spells31137086


note that in 2nd and 3rd some wizard spells could also be cast by other classes.
But this means 43% of the 2nd edition PHB was spells, and 40% of the 3.5 player handbook where spells.
If i had to chose between compacting and reducing the the spell list on release, or having classes availeble on release i would go with reducing the spell list.
More spells are easy to add later while not having one of your players favorite class at release might be a problem.


 
 
1st Ed
 
Pages
160
Spells
60

D&D Rules Cylcopedia
Pages
304

Spells
20

 A few 3.5 spells can be cut and since 2nd ed priest spheres are not being used some of them can be cut as well although in AD&D 2nd ed about 2/3rds of the spells were wizard ones.

37 pages can be cut from the 4th ed PHB by putting magic items back in the DMG. 3.5 had 4 less pages than 4th ed i its ocbat section but one can cut that down a bit, Mearls mentined 16 pages and D&DN is a bit simplaer so maybe 20 is a more realistic goal. Thats another 13 pages So 50 pages saved before we even have ot look at spells, some of them will be eaten up with maneuveurs. Cut spells by around 20 pages from the 3.5 ones but they had to create new lvl 8 and 9 spells in the 2nd ed to 3rd ed transitions.Classes need to be able to fit on 3 or 4 pages.

 Thats around 70 pages one could easily cut from 3.5 and 4th ed PHBs without haveing to make drastic cuts anywhere. 20-30 of them could do new classes and manuveurs, skills should not eat up as much room as 3rd and 4th ed along with feats as well so in theory plenty of room.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I can understand why they are upset but I am more interested in the 1st to 2nd ed and 3rd to 4th ed transition.

Sorry, but my transition was from 2E to 3E, so I haven't really experienced the cutting of a class between two editions that I really liked.

Back when I was excited about 4E, I did look back on all of the classes I would miss from 3E, but I was pretty enthusiastic about cutting down to the core and not having to sort through half a dozen books just to pick a class. Of course, they also didn't nix any of the core classes I actually cared about - I never really liked barbarians (too angry), druids (too complicated), monks (wrong genre), or bards (too spoony). I did like sorcerer, but it was more of a casting mechanic than a real class, and they folded it into wizard anyway so I didn't feel its loss.

The only class I've ever really missed was Healer.

The metagame is not the game.

Its still some sort of feedback. It seems not to many people are that concerned about the Sorcerer. It is a bad bad idea to cut bards and druids, warlock is worth saving, warlord for obvious reasons. Not that worried about the Monk or Barbarian personally (wrong genre for monks).

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Honestly, I didn't even really notice that they had cut the Monk or Assassin from 1E to 2E. It took someone pointing it out a few months after we had been playing 2E for it to even raise an eyebrow. It was then quickly forgotten.

As for what's included in 5E...that's a tricky question.

There are fans of every class that has ever been in a PHB. Personally, I don't think they should really cut any of them, but it's bound to happen.

What matters is context.

Pointing toward 4E as leaving out classes from the PHB I is just a tiny bit disingenuous.
Each PHB concerned itself with particular power sources. The book would've been 900 pages long if they had tried to include every possible class in the frst PHB.

In 4E, the PHB I concerned itself with Martial, Divine, and Arcane classes.
The PHB II dealt with Arcane, Primal, and Divine classes.
The PHB III dealt with Psionic, Divine, and Primal classes.

Sure, people were upset about the Druid, Barbarian, etc. not being in the PHB I, but going by their power source mindset made it so that they had to omit certain ones from the first PHB. I seriously doubt it was any kind of ill will that made them choose what they chose.

As for 5E, the artificial restraints of power source aren't really there. There's no valid excuse to exclude any previous-PHB classes. Doing so is bound to upset a good number of people. The only real reason I could see them omitting any previous-PHB classes from core 5E is the "modular" mindset they are working with. Would the Warlord be better off waiting to be released until the tactical options are presented? I, personally, don't think so, but I'm not one of the devs (thank goodness).
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
My group went through the AD&D to 2nd Edition changeover early on in our history.

We had a player with an Assassin and he wasn't thrilled, in fact he stopped playing with us pretty soon after.

Our DMs (including myself) hadn't permitted the Monk class as it didn't fit with the European feel of the settings we ran at the time, so we noticed it was gone but didn't really care.

I certainly experienced some people who were very angry about it though and I remember talking to people in Pendragon (the local gaming store) who were ditching D&D entirely and going to other systems because of the changes which they didn't like.     
Personally, I'm a "more the merrier" kind of guy when it comes to Races & Classes, with the assumption that all are optional. While I may not like the Warlord as a class, I see no reason to deny it to other groupa who do. If they take the idea that each Class takes 2-3 pages (tops) in the PHB, they can easily include a dozen clases without causing too many problems (same with Races).

Some classes, however should not return. Most notably, the Assassin and Illusionist, which almost everyone would agree work well as sub-classes. With the Warlord's popularity, I suspect it will return as a full Class.

 As the 4th ed players are raging over the warlord this is not the 1st time classes have been excluded from the game. I was not around for the 1st ed to 2nd ed transfer so I'm not sure if the Monk and Assassin being excluded created any major friction. I went from BECM straight to 2nd ed and the classes were later added back into 2nd ed although the assassin became a kit.

 Whatever problems 3rd ed had it made all of the 1st and 2nd ed core classes appear on release. So far it is the only version of D&D to have the Barbarian as a core class. 4th ed did eliminate classes but that may not have bene the only problem more the scale of it IDK as they nuked 5/11 3.5 classes and several races a s well which had been in the game since 1st ed such as the Gnome.

 Anyway to me core is fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric but even then only if you would be selling D&DN as a reboot of the franchise. The Paladin and Ranger have been in all ediitons and 4th ed cut the Druid an Bard both of which had been in 1st-3rd ed. So I regard those as core classes as well (outside a reboot/BECM clone). So that leaves 8 classes that if I was designing D&D any edition I would not cut at all short of selling it as a reboot.

 That leaves the Barbarian, Monk and Sorcerer which have only been core in 1 edition or 2 in the Monks case.  Cutting classes is always going to be an emotional thing but hypothetically if 4th ed had not have cut them or had maybe only cut 1-2 classes instead of 5 would it have mattered? If each edition keeps adding more classes to the game how many classes do we really need in a core book? 11, 13 15 20+? Will 7th edition try to include 13 classes+DDN and 6th eds classes? The more bloat the more likely they will do a reboot back to 4 classes one day IMHO.

 Or do we freeze the core classes at a point in time (1st-4th ed pick one) and rotate a few in and out every edition. 13 classes is getting towards the upper limit for me in terms of how many classes you need or want in a core priduct, 15 being the absolute most I would probably want with a preference for 8-10 classes and I am currently using 10 (3.5 ones minus sorcerer, mostly becuase current rules I am using lack the Sorcerer class). If the developers decide to cut a class for whatever reason maybe they need to ask the fans so to speak about it even if it is something like "Hey guys we're having problems with the assassin because of the evil alignment things and its resemblence to the Rogue, we are planning on releasing it later in a splat". 

 So basically how do you cut a class, do you want to cut a class and should they ask to cut a class?



1e to 2e had adventures in both Greyhawk and Forgotten realms that explained why both assassins (maybe monks too) were not in the game any longer although the FR adventure may have only been the book (dunno if there was a published adventure to go along with that book)

Some people whined tremendously about the assassin going away but there was shortly an assassin kit in the complete book of thieves (maybe in othe complete books as well).  I don't remember the monk having too many adherents that yelled a lot and there was also a monk kit in the complete book of priests if i recall correctly.

Me i'd put assassins and barbarians into the realm of themes and backgrounds.
 
I can understand why they are upset but I am more interested in the 1st to 2nd ed and 3rd to 4th ed transition.



Transition from 1st to 2nd was fairly painless. We continued using the 1st edition classes. Some of our players were even using 1st edition rangers in 2nd edition. We didn't care, it really wasn't an issue having both editions coexisting.

There was also a class change from 2nd to 3rd edition: the bard. The AD&D bard didn't have all the inspiration crap the 3rd edition one. He was basically a little bit of a fighter, a wizard and a rogue, and a lot of fun to play. I personally missed the AD&D bard but it wasn't one of my favorite classes to start with. Considering how different a 3rd edition bard played compared to a 2nd edition one, you could say that it's a class cut.

Transition from 3rd to 4th was so painful that we stopped playing D&D. I can't really comment on the class cuts because there are so many other things we disliked that we barely noticed these minor changes.
1st Ed
 

 A few 3.5 spells can be cut and since 2nd ed priest spheres are not being used some of them can be cut as well although in AD&D 2nd ed about 2/3rds of the spells were wizard ones.

37 pages can be cut from the 4th ed PHB by putting magic items back in the DMG. 3.5 had 4 less pages than 4th ed i its ocbat section but one can cut that down a bit, Mearls mentined 16 pages and D&DN is a bit simplaer so maybe 20 is a more realistic goal. Thats another 13 pages So 50 pages saved before we even have ot look at spells, some of them will be eaten up with maneuveurs. Cut spells by around 20 pages from the 3.5 ones but they had to create new lvl 8 and 9 spells in the 2nd ed to 3rd ed transitions.Classes need to be able to fit on 3 or 4 pages.

 Thats around 70 pages one could easily cut from 3.5 and 4th ed PHBs without haveing to make drastic cuts anywhere. 20-30 of them could do new classes and manuveurs, skills should not eat up as much room as 3rd and 4th ed along with feats as well so in theory plenty of room.



some spells could be combined if needed.
In the playtest there are 4 cure X wounds spells basicly doing 1d8 per spell level + some bonus [ 1d8+4 2d8+4 3d8+8 4d8+8]
all with the same range and target lines
If needed this could become 1 cure wounds spell healing 1d8+2 per level of the spell slot used.  [ 1d8+2 2d8+4 3d8+6 4d8+8]
they have damage spells where damge scales depending on spell slot used so why not have the same for healing ?

 

 So basically how do you cut a class, do you want to cut a class and should they ask to cut a class?



Have the Fighter,  Magic-User,  Cleric,  Thief.  Make everything else a Prestige Class.  That's all they really are,  modified versions of those 4 classes,  either hybridized or specialized.  The class system would make *alot* more sense if we didn't have these few exceptions that are kept as classes just because they were classes in 1st edition.
 Well the thing I have noticed is that not to many people seem that concerned with the Assassin and Illusionist classes as they were subsumed by other classes long ago (2nd ed thief assassin kit). Would not be surprised to see the warlord come back.

 The bard was a bit different. Probably the 2nd most powerful class in 2nd ed due to wizard spells+ leveling as fast as a thief. I'm not that worried about things like  fighters have changed in every edition. Some of the mechanics may change but one can compare Paladins for example between 1st-3rd ed and they all havd smite evil, some sort of save bonus, a holy aura, immune to diseaselay on hands, a horse, LG alignment etc. Rangers are a wilderness warrior with some spells. They do not have to be a carbon copy of the lcass in the previous edition but they should at least resemble the class which is maybe where 4th ed went wrong. To many changes all at once is bad I suppose.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

1st Ed
 

 A few 3.5 spells can be cut and since 2nd ed priest spheres are not being used some of them can be cut as well although in AD&D 2nd ed about 2/3rds of the spells were wizard ones.

37 pages can be cut from the 4th ed PHB by putting magic items back in the DMG. 3.5 had 4 less pages than 4th ed i its ocbat section but one can cut that down a bit, Mearls mentined 16 pages and D&DN is a bit simplaer so maybe 20 is a more realistic goal. Thats another 13 pages So 50 pages saved before we even have ot look at spells, some of them will be eaten up with maneuveurs. Cut spells by around 20 pages from the 3.5 ones but they had to create new lvl 8 and 9 spells in the 2nd ed to 3rd ed transitions.Classes need to be able to fit on 3 or 4 pages.

 Thats around 70 pages one could easily cut from 3.5 and 4th ed PHBs without haveing to make drastic cuts anywhere. 20-30 of them could do new classes and manuveurs, skills should not eat up as much room as 3rd and 4th ed along with feats as well so in theory plenty of room.



some spells could be combined if needed.
In the playtest there are 4 cure X wounds spells basicly doing 1d8 per spell level + some bonus [ 1d8+4 2d8+4 3d8+8 4d8+8]
all with the same range and target lines
If needed this could become 1 cure wounds spell healing 1d8+2 per level of the spell slot used.  [ 1d8+2 2d8+4 3d8+6 4d8+8]
they have damage spells where damge scales depending on spell slot used so why not have the same for healing ?

 



 Not a bad idea they could even have the spell be called cure moderate, cure serious, cure critical in the spell description so you can "kicker" the spell and retain the name. Keep the concept, change the mechancics, minmise the pain of new mechanics.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


 So basically how do you cut a class, do you want to cut a class and should they ask to cut a class?



Have the Fighter,  Magic-User,  Cleric,  Thief.  Make everything else a Prestige Class.  That's all they really are,  modified versions of those 4 classes,  either hybridized or specialized.  The class system would make *alot* more sense if we didn't have these few exceptions that are kept as classes just because they were classes in 1st edition.



Probably a bit late for that now. If they had sold D&DN as a reboot it makes alot of sense but they did not. Take the warlord rage and magnify for each class. Watch Paizo chuckle and rake in the money.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

1st Ed
 

 A few 3.5 spells can be cut and since 2nd ed priest spheres are not being used some of them can be cut as well although in AD&D 2nd ed about 2/3rds of the spells were wizard ones.

37 pages can be cut from the 4th ed PHB by putting magic items back in the DMG. 3.5 had 4 less pages than 4th ed i its ocbat section but one can cut that down a bit, Mearls mentined 16 pages and D&DN is a bit simplaer so maybe 20 is a more realistic goal. Thats another 13 pages So 50 pages saved before we even have ot look at spells, some of them will be eaten up with maneuveurs. Cut spells by around 20 pages from the 3.5 ones but they had to create new lvl 8 and 9 spells in the 2nd ed to 3rd ed transitions.Classes need to be able to fit on 3 or 4 pages.

 Thats around 70 pages one could easily cut from 3.5 and 4th ed PHBs without haveing to make drastic cuts anywhere. 20-30 of them could do new classes and manuveurs, skills should not eat up as much room as 3rd and 4th ed along with feats as well so in theory plenty of room.



some spells could be combined if needed.
In the playtest there are 4 cure X wounds spells basicly doing 1d8 per spell level + some bonus [ 1d8+4 2d8+4 3d8+8 4d8+8]
all with the same range and target lines
If needed this could become 1 cure wounds spell healing 1d8+2 per level of the spell slot used.  [ 1d8+2 2d8+4 3d8+6 4d8+8]
they have damage spells where damge scales depending on spell slot used so why not have the same for healing ?

 



 Not a bad idea they could even have the spell be called cure moderate, cure serious, cure critical in the spell description so you can "kicker" the spell and retain the name. Keep the concept, change the mechancics, minmise the pain of new mechanics.



raise dead, resurect, and true resurect all the same spell just some difrenced based on spell slot used.
 
teleport teleport without error same spell only more acurate if a higer level spell slot is used.

and then we might aswell have 1 sumon monster spell where what you summon depends on spell slot used.

protection from evil and protection from evil 10 foot radius 
 Well the thing I have noticed is that not to many people seem that concerned with the Assassin and Illusionist classes as they were subsumed by other classes long ago (2nd ed thief assassin kit). Would not be surprised to see the warlord come back.

 The bard was a bit different. Probably the 2nd most powerful class in 2nd ed due to wizard spells+ leveling as fast as a thief. I'm not that worried about things like  fighters have changed in every edition. Some of the mechanics may change but one can compare Paladins for example between 1st-3rd ed and they all havd smite evil, some sort of save bonus, a holy aura, immune to diseaselay on hands, a horse, LG alignment etc. Rangers are a wilderness warrior with some spells. They do not have to be a carbon copy of the lcass in the previous edition but they should at least resemble the class which is maybe where 4th ed went wrong. To many changes all at once is bad I suppose.



I think changes in a class are a good thing if it means making them more fun. AD&D fighters really needed extra options. A bag of hit points, high AC and an auto-attack is not really my kind of fun. I think every change to the fighter has been good so far because they tried to make the class more enjoyable to play. Changes like the 4th edition wizard aren't because it's a totally different class labelled wizard.

Two words:


Backward Compatability.


1e classes are perfectly usable in 2e rules with very little required to tweak them. Many of the changes to how classes function in 2e don't happen at the class level so much; whether you're checking the to hit chart or the thaco chart really makes no odds. The xp I remember being a bit wonky but it wasn't too hard to adjust it since xp in 2e was wonky anyway.


The thing that WOTC did that totally destroyed the unity in the D&D fanbase was they created new editions of D&D that aren't compatable with most of the stuff from the previous edition. 3e basically threw 2e under a bus. 4e did the same thing to 3e, and 5e possibly going to do that to 4e (the jury's still out, but there's a vocal section that seems to think that's what's going to happen).


Now, 2e is by no stretch of the imagination totally backward compatable with 1e, but in the ways that matter to the players it is.

Even then you could still at least convert AD&D spells into 3rd ed without to much hassle. Note D&DN doesn't use caster level which makes your 2nd ed Spell Encyclopedias a bit useless. Kind of weird in a good way though that spells from 33 years ago can be plugged into Pathfinder and used.

 Also one of the AD&D authors has offered to apologise for The Complete Book of Elves. Thats just funny (its late here and I'm being random m'kay).
www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/torm...

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The multiclassing transition from 2 to 3 seriously rankled, since multiclassing was a cornerstone to many character concepts.


I was a huge multi fan in 2e and I did transition to 3e but I was always annoyed that I couldn't make a fighter/mage/thief that didn't suck.

... core is fighter, rogue, wizard and cleric but even then only if you would be selling D&DN as a reboot of the franchise. The Paladin and Ranger have been in all ediitons and 4th ed cut the Druid an Bard both of which had been in 1st-3rd ed. So I regard those as core classes as well (outside a reboot/BECM clone). So that leaves 8 classes that if I was designing D&D any edition I would not cut at all short of selling it as a reboot.

 That leaves the Barbarian, Monk and Sorcerer which have only been core in 1 edition or 2 in the Monks case.  ...

First off, I'd ditch the word "core." Every class is just a class, no matter if it's in PHB (or even if there's a PHB[number]) or if it's in a future book like the Complete Book of Paladins. If all classes are created with the same basic structure, a class is a class. So rather than "cut," a class is simply introduced a little later due to space and time considerations. Doesn't make those later classes second-class choices (pun intended ;) ).

The multiclassing transition from 2 to 3 seriously rankled, since multiclassing was a cornerstone to many character concepts.

I was a huge multi fan in 2e and I did transition to 3e but I was always annoyed that I couldn't make a fighter/mage/thief that didn't suck.


Agreed. I'm really hoping that 5e multiclassing will allow both 2e and 3e styles, since I have really great characters built with each method -- but the concept dictated the method. My oldest continuous PC is a 2e Ftr/Mage, and another really fun one is a Sorc/Pal who took Paladin at level 20 (3e) due to how the character evolved throughout the campaign. I really need both those methods to be available.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

If I recal correctly, the 1e players who were upset with the removal of the Assassin and Monk from 2e were mostly power gamers.   The 2e game made it clear that those concepts were simply kits.   

What I fear the most about 5e are the PrCs and the damage they will do to the system.  


I feel like any edition transition is inevitably going to be stuck balancing ease of transition with making the changes the design team feels are important to make - or, put another way, making a game that stands on its own as well as possible. I'm definitely not saying that it's fine to just completely ignore all semblance of continuity, of course. Alienating more people than necessary is obviously a bad thing, and the fact that it's happened in the past doesn't mean that it's cool for it to happen now because SUCK IT. Someone might understand the decision-making that went into leaving, for example, certain classes out of the 4e PHB1, but that doesn't mean that they're happy that that happened. It's genuinely important that edition transitions are as smooth as possible. Next is (allegedly) taking on the extra challenge of trying to be at least a vaguely coherent transition from lots of different editions.

At the same time, if Next is really trying to be a Forever Edition, it to some degree makes sense to just bite the bullet on certain things. Nevertheless, I think that D&D players have historically demonstrated a stronger preference for transition-easing design decisions than I would maybe expect, and so they're very important too.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
i can run a 1st edition adventure with a 2nd edition party with no alteration and it makes sense, the spells and magic items are pretty much interchangable and the class diffrences didnt matter when alot of groups homebrewed barbarian, assassin, and whatever else they ran in 1st with the class design rules in the dmg

 So basically how do you cut a class, do you want to cut a class and should they ask to cut a class?



Have the Fighter,  Magic-User,  Cleric,  Thief.  Make everything else a Prestige Class.  That's all they really are,  modified versions of those 4 classes,  either hybridized or specialized.  The class system would make *alot* more sense if we didn't have these few exceptions that are kept as classes just because they were classes in 1st edition.



Probably a bit late for that now. If they had sold D&DN as a reboot it makes alot of sense but they did not. Take the warlord rage and magnify for each class. Watch Paizo chuckle and rake in the money.



Yesterday did i buy 2 new paizo books. At the same time did i ask in the game store
What is selling (paizo or wotc products). They answered
We sell a lot more paizo products compared to wotc products
Enter the Grognard, Me.
   That's right your friendly neighborhood advocate for multi edition input is in fact an uber Grog! Wrap your head around that one......
I am a pro 1st edition player who actually loves The 1.5 or 12 original orange border Advanced Dungeons and Dragons game. Yes, that means that my group plays with Both weapon and non weapon proficiencies or Secondary skills, and the Unearthed Arcana- the original one is also in play.
 So the switch from 1st to 2nd edition had this effect on those who play my prefered system:
These classes were completely annexed:
Players handbook: Assassin, Monk, The Bard was modified to become just a base class for 2nd ed.
Unearthed Arcana: Cavalier, Barbarian, Thief/Acrobat.
 
The Paladin had his abilities modified significantly. he used to radiate protection from evil in a 10 ft. radius for a +2 bonus to his and those within the radius a.c.
The Ranger became a d10 hp. warrior without the benefit of weapon specialization. the used to have it as a class ability. he was a 2d8 h.p. @ 1st level d8 from there.
2nd edition introduced the Specialist wizard and Priest of specific mythoi, 1st edition had Mage, Illusionist as a class- it's a specialist in 2nd under it's own listing ,and Cleric.
As I mentioned the bard became a single class- It was a multi class type character.
Half orcs were removed from the core list of charater races.
As a side note 1e. has no level tier limit, you continue to advance; and 2nd made the 20 level cap a core concept. Also xp requirements to advance were changed between the two systems in some cases.

Many of these options were added again later as the Complete Series books were released. The Barbarian became it's own class again via the Barbarians handbook, Assassin became a kit in the Thief's handbook,
And half orcs became optional races in the Complete book of Humaniods. Certain ranger Kits offered weapon specializaton again via the Rangers handbook. The Cavalier became a kit in the Fighters handbook.

There are many other minor changes between the two editions ( weights in coins vs. pounds as an example) of the AD&D game however as noted the game was basically backward compatable once you chose your prefered vehicle. So I could play a 1e Paladin in a 2nd edition game, or vice versa and be happy with my version of the class as long as my d.m. was agreeable.

Did this stop people from becoming enraged when 2nd edition was released? No. At the time the Grognard was born from the ashes of TSR's outing Gary Gygax, and the 1e fans blamed David- "Zeb" Cook for changing their game, nerfing the classes, and making it politically correct via the changing of demons and devils to Baalors and Tannari. They used to be called By specific names and have iconic Monsters who were demons like "Orcus" the prince of the Undead. To this day the hard core 1e fans reject 2nd edition but most will now grudgingly admit it is the same system.  

I play both games as do alot of us older seasoned D&D gamers. In fact by and large many fans play a solid mixture of the two systems. I have been playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons for 25 years. I have over 75 titles on my bookshelves. Most of these are AD&D 1st or 2nd edition. 
My bookshelves read like a D&D history lesson from OD&D to Mentzers BECMI & the Rules Cyclopedia. , 1e, 1.5, and the premuim reprints, 2e- original and revised, 2.5 or Players Option series, 3.0, 3.5, and now Pathfinder.

I also collect the D&D computer games from the ssi series to Bulders Gate series, to Tomb of Horrors Neverwinter Nights 1&2.

O.K. no more TMI. Happy gaming folks. Sorry for the wall oh' text.
And for those who are old enough to remember the 1e/2e edition war it was pretty darned harsh.  Mention tanarri/baatezu and the knives would surely come out.  Heck I even know some folks who hated anything not in the original phb (UA, OA, WSG, DSG all could get some danders up)

Seemed kinda silly to me since they were basically the same game with slight tweaks (we used 1e/2e stuff together for a long time) although as you said the ouster of GG played a big role in that particular edition war. 

Gimme a game with the speed of 1/2e, flavor of 2e, options for noncasters and some of the innovations like 4e and options for 3e folks to get their stuff and we'd have a winner.
 
I was only 11 when it happened but I remember going around my local game shop and overhearing people shouting at each other about 2e.
Yes, I do recal that some people really hated 2e when it was released.       2e was mostly just a reorganization of the system.   Sure it removed and altered some rules and classes, but the modules, monsters, spells, and magical items didn't change all the much.       I've even played games in which the DM attacked a 2e party with a high level NPC 1e monk - and yet everything worked perfectly.  

IMO, those who hated 2e were mostly just 1e power gamers who typically liked to play the "evil half-orc assassin" and attempt a player/party kill.       I do recal some lame mechanical arguments against thac0 and the Demons and Devils controversy, but that's about it.    

IMO, the transition from 2e to 3e was far less offensive.   Those who played 2e could transition to the new system with ease.  Many people welcomed the mechanical changes (which were needed), and merely shurgged at the issues with multi-classing characters and PrCs.   Of course, those groups who played 2e were typically not powergamers and never experienced the broken characters that modern gamers complaign about.

With that said, I think 4e was the bigest change to date.    Looking back, the 4e designers must have known that they would just end up offending most of their existing player base.  Still I think they incorrectly assumed that the MMORPG generation of players would replace them.   

It's clear to me that even small changes to the system are not welcome.    That's why 5e will be a welcome change to all those pre-4e players who were put off by 4e.    At the very least their glass will be half-full.    On the other hand, I think the 4e generation of gamers will experience a huge change that I'm not sure they are prepared for.   

Sure some gamers won't return, but I'm facinated with idea of a new 5e generation gamer.   I wonder what generation of grognards will they be most confortable playing with?

Anyway, I  just found this list of 94 1e vs 2e PHB changes on rpg.net and thought it would be helpfull.

Show

1. Ability score tables now list scores from 1 to 25 in the PHB.
2. Ability score functions changed slightly, such as weight allowance for scores less than 10 and % chance to learn spells for scores from 10 to 16.
3. Ability scores of 5 or lower no longer limits class selection.
4. Open doors changed from a d6 to a d20.
5. Intelligence no longer affects the minimum number of spells per level for magic-users.
6. Maximum spells per level has been reduced to an optional rule.
7. Loyalty and NPC reaction changed from d% to d20.
8. Half-orcs removed.
9. Racial level limits increased and no longer based on ability scores.
10. Slow unlimited advancement for demi-humans is an optional rule.
11. Gnomes now receive ability score adjustments.
12. Racial ability minimum and maximums changed.
13. Demi-humans no longer begin knowing several languages.
14. Additional languages for demi-humans no longer limited by race.
15. Life expectancy of most demi-humans greatly reduced.
16. Dwarves now have a 20% chance for all magic items not specifically suited to their class to fail instead of a 20% chance of failure for rings only.
17. Dwarves’ underground skills have slightly different probabilites.
18. The resurrection spell now affects elves, and raise dead may affect elves at the DM’s option.
19. Gnomes now have a 20% chance for all magic items except weapons, armor, shields, illusionist items, and thief items to fail.
20. Gnomes’ underground skills have slightly different probabilities.
21. Halflings now receive a +1 to their attack rolls when using thrown weapons or slings.
22. Halflings no longer have the 20% chance for magic rings to fail when they use them.
23. Experience point requirements for classes changed, most notable is the paladin.
24. Weapons and armor permissible to some classes changed slightly.
25. Class prime requisite ability scores changed.
26. Classes were divided into four main groups (warrior, priest, wizard, rogue), no sub-classes exist.
27. Class titles removed.
28. Assassin, barbarian, cavalier, and monk classes were removed.
29. Bard and ranger classes changed entirely.
30. Fighters no longer make a number of attacks equal to their level when fighting enemies with less than one hit die.
31. Weapon specialization changed for bows.
32. The monthly income for establishing a stronghold was removed.
33. Paladins now receive four weapons proficiencies at 1st level (and gain one every 3 levels instead of every 2 levels as in the UA).
34. Magic-users now called mages.
35. Mages, illusionists, and other specialist wizards share the same experience, hit die, and spell progression tables.
36. Mages now receive hit dice up to level 10 instead of level 11.
37. Mages no longer have the ability to construct strongholds.
38. Illusionists no longer are a separate class, but are now specialist wizards.
39. Illusionists no longer have their own spell list.
40. Cleric turn undead table changed and included in the PHB instead of the DMG.
41. Druids are no longer a separate class, but are now priests of a specific mythos.
42. Druids no longer have their own spell list.
43. Druids no longer have a class level limit.
44. Thieves now allocate a number of percentage points to each skill at 1st level and with each additional level increase to their various skills instead of having each skill increase by the same amount for all thieves.
45. The pick pockets skill functions differently.
46. The open locks skill functions differently.
47. Thieves can now remain hidden in the shadows while making very small, slow movements; and a hidden thief is equally hidden from creatures with or without infravision.
48. Multi-class combinations allowed changed slightly.
49. Half-elven multi-classed clerics no longer require a minimum wisdom of 13.
50. Multi-classed wizards cannot cast spells while wearing armor.
51. Multi-classed priests are still restricted to priest weapons.
52. Dual-classed characters may now have up to four classes.
53. Dual-classed characters may only select one class from each class group.
54. Alignment definitions changed.
55. A change in alignment now doubles the amount of experience needed to reach the next level instead of causing a loss of a level.
56. Additional weapon proficiencies for level advancement now start counting from 1st level instead of including 1st level.
57. Non-weapon proficiencies*.
58. Silver pieces are now 1/10th of a gold.
59. Starting funds for a mage is now 1d4 + 1 instead of 2d4.
60. Priests may not retain any starting funds after purchasing initial equipment.
61. Prices for various items, including weapons and armor changed.
62. Some new items added.
63. Field plate and full plate no longer reduce damage.
64. Weapon vs. AC type replaced with weapon type vs. armor and made optional.
65. Missile weapon range now given in tens of yards for all situations.
66. Encumbrance now calculated off of actual weight and does not include bulk.
67. Spell components made optional.
68. Spell lists were changed, all wizards now use the same spell list. Priest spells are divided into spheres and clerics and druids use the same list.
69. Some individual spells have changed.
70. Awarding experience points changed.
71. Training reduced to an optional rule.
72. A natural roll of 20 is always a hit, regardless of the AC of the target.
73. THAC0 for thieves and magic-users changed and is unlimited in progression.
74. Segments are removed from the combat round.
75. Initiative is changed.
76. Group initiative and individual initiative optional rules.
77. Characters and creatures with multiple attacks do not automatically attack first in the round.
78. Weapon speed now affects initiative as an optional rule.
79. Two weapon fighting is only available to warriors and rogues.
80. Non-lethal combat rules changed.
81. Parrying rules changed and reduced to optional.
82. Some saving throws now have a priority over others.
83. Magic resistance no longer affected by caster level.
84. Not all monster poisons are lethal anymore.
85. Characters now gain 3 h.p. per day of bed rest instead of 1.
86. Characters can now die if they suffer 50 points of damage from one attack, regardless of their hit point total, if they fail to make a save vs. death.
87. Surprise changed, uses a d10 and represents one full round of surprise instead of a variable number of segments. Spells cannot be cast during the surprise round.
88. Surprised characters lose their dexterity bonus to AC, they are assumed to be totally non-reactant.
89. Henchmen are now special NPCs that the DM introduces into the group and are friends and allies but not employees of PCs. There is no restrictions on the level of a henchmen acquired.
90. The illumination radius of torches, magic weapons, and other items is reduced.
91. Halflings’ base movement changed from 9” to 6.
92. Jogging and running optional rules added.
93. All characters have a 40% chance to climb walls. 
94. Climbing modifiers changed.


There is a 2nd monk class. Its in the scarlet brotherhood book. A greyhawk book I believe.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

By the way it still was a weak class.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.


.... Or do we freeze the core classes at a point in time (1st-4th ed pick one) and rotate a few in and out every edition. 13 classes is getting towards the upper limit for me in terms of how many classes you need or want in a core priduct, 15 being the absolute most I would probably want with a preference for 8-10 classes and I am currently using 10 ....



This is, to me, the only real limiter.  At some point, redundancy and overlap between classes is going to mean that we're swamping not just new players, but experienced ones, for no benefit.  I'm largely a traditionalist, D&D-wise, but I think this is a case in which you scrap everything that's gone before and ask: what's the bare minimum you can get away with?

I think it comes back to class functions.  Youhave some players who want to hit and be hit by monsters.  Some who want to avoid combat whenever possible and instead focus on the puzzle-solving skill sets.  Some who are in it for blasting stuff from a distance.  Some who are i nit for cooperative teambuilding cameraderie.  LEt's call those Fighter, Thief, Mage, and Cleric.  Then there are hybrids for each possible pairing other than those with diametrically opposed aims (assume the person who wants to hit stuff isn't the same one who wants to hang back out of the way and not get hit, for instance)...
Fighter+thief = ranger
Fighter+cleric = paladin
Thief+mage = illusionist
Cleric+mage = druid

Then add one Jack-of-all-Trades, master of none class which is kind of a wash of stabbing things, figuring puzzles, blasting magic, and healing or buffing camerades.  Call it the Bard.

Nine classes.   Done.
 
Enter the Grognard, Me.
   That's right your friendly neighborhood advocate for multi edition input is in fact an uber Grog! Wrap your head around that one......
I am a pro 1st edition player who actually loves The 1.5 or 12 original orange border Advanced Dungeons and Dragons game. Yes, that means that my group plays with Both weapon and non weapon proficiencies or Secondary skills, and the Unearthed Arcana- the original one is also in play.
 So the switch from 1st to 2nd edition had this effect on those who play my prefered system:
These classes were completely annexed:
Players handbook: Assassin, Monk, The Bard was modified to become just a base class for 2nd ed.
Unearthed Arcana: Cavalier, Barbarian, Thief/Acrobat.
 
The Paladin had his abilities modified significantly. he used to radiate protection from evil in a 10 ft. radius for a +2 bonus to his and those within the radius a.c.
The Ranger became a d10 hp. warrior without the benefit of weapon specialization. the used to have it as a class ability. he was a 2d8 h.p. @ 1st level d8 from there.
2nd edition introduced the Specialist wizard and Priest of specific mythoi, 1st edition had Mage, Illusionist as a class- it's a specialist in 2nd under it's own listing ,and Cleric.
As I mentioned the bard became a single class- It was a multi class type character.
Half orcs were removed from the core list of charater races.
As a side note 1e. has no level tier limit, you continue to advance; and 2nd made the 20 level cap a core concept. Also xp requirements to advance were changed between the two systems in some cases.

Many of these options were added again later as the Complete Series books were released. The Barbarian became it's own class again via the Barbarians handbook, Assassin became a kit in the Thief's handbook,
And half orcs became optional races in the Complete book of Humaniods. Certain ranger Kits offered weapon specializaton again via the Rangers handbook. The Cavalier became a kit in the Fighters handbook.

There are many other minor changes between the two editions ( weights in coins vs. pounds as an example) of the AD&D game however as noted the game was basically backward compatable once you chose your prefered vehicle. So I could play a 1e Paladin in a 2nd edition game, or vice versa and be happy with my version of the class as long as my d.m. was agreeable.

Did this stop people from becoming enraged when 2nd edition was released? No. At the time the Grognard was born from the ashes of TSR's outing Gary Gygax, and the 1e fans blamed David- "Zeb" Cook for changing their game, nerfing the classes, and making it politically correct via the changing of demons and devils to Baalors and Tannari. They used to be called By specific names and have iconic Monsters who were demons like "Orcus" the prince of the Undead. To this day the hard core 1e fans reject 2nd edition but most will now grudgingly admit it is the same system.  

I play both games as do alot of us older seasoned D&D gamers. In fact by and large many fans play a solid mixture of the two systems. I have been playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons for 25 years. I have over 75 titles on my bookshelves. Most of these are AD&D 1st or 2nd edition. 
My bookshelves read like a D&D history lesson from OD&D to Mentzers BECMI & the Rules Cyclopedia. , 1e, 1.5, and the premuim reprints, 2e- original and revised, 2.5 or Players Option series, 3.0, 3.5, and now Pathfinder.

I also collect the D&D computer games from the ssi series to Bulders Gate series, to Tomb of Horrors Neverwinter Nights 1&2.

O.K. no more TMI. Happy gaming folks. Sorry for the wall oh' text.




 I like history so it is all good. I wonder if 2nd ed would have gone down nicer if Gary was the one who was at the helm because AKAIK he was consdering doing it himself one day.

 Brightmantle if they made an AD&D 3rd ed do you think grogs would like it if it used some d20 mechanics (higher AC etc) and threw out things like level limits and racial restictions? No feats, optional skills/proficincies etc? You're not the only grog I know of playing Pathfider either and they seem to like Paizo better than WoTC. Is that because PF is better than 3.0 which may have caused people to reject 3rd ed? I like d0 generally but never stopped liking AD&D and it is fun just reading 1st and 2nd ed books and between Eye of the Beholder and 1st ed books I found that got me into D&D in the 1st place.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


 So basically how do you cut a class, do you want to cut a class and should they ask to cut a class?



Have the Fighter,  Magic-User,  Cleric,  Thief.  Make everything else a Prestige Class.  That's all they really are,  modified versions of those 4 classes,  either hybridized or specialized.  The class system would make *alot* more sense if we didn't have these few exceptions that are kept as classes just because they were classes in 1st edition.



Probably a bit late for that now. If they had sold D&DN as a reboot it makes alot of sense but they did not. Take the warlord rage and magnify for each class. Watch Paizo chuckle and rake in the money.



Yesterday did i buy 2 new paizo books. At the same time did i ask in the game store
What is selling (paizo or wotc products). They answered
We sell a lot more paizo products compared to wotc products


Amazon is much bigger in retail sales than your local game store.  Amazon shows that Pathfinder products are selling much better than 4E products.

The secret is not to go back to selling 3E however.  D&D needs an even better system.  I am hoping this will be Next.
Competing with Paizo over 3rd ed woud be follish. The one thing that could hurt Paizo in that regard would be fixing 3rd ed. Not sure if D&DN will count in that regard. It superficially resembles 3rd ed but uses very little from it except the d20 mechanics. Elements of AD&D could also do it as Paizo can't touch the TSR era campaign worlds and Gygaxs name still carrys some weight.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


 As the 4th ed players are raging over the warlord this is not the 1st time classes have been excluded from the game. I was not around for the 1st ed to 2nd ed transfer so I'm not sure if the Monk and Assassin being excluded created any major friction.

Obviously, every class has it's fans, but the Monk and Assassin were always pretty marginal classes.  The Monk didn't fit the tone of D&D outside of some exercise in what today would be derided as "cultural theft," like Oriental Adventures.  The Assassin was criticized from the moment it appeared as a job, not a class - and one that /any/ class could do pretty well, since most classes can be pretty deadly.  So, they became kits and not terribly prominent ones.  In 3e, for no apparent reason, the Monk came back, but the assassin just became a PrC.  4e, eventually, included both classes, but you didn't see old-schoolers jumping for joy at the long-delayed return of a full-class Assassin.    

Whatever problems 3rd ed had it made all of the 1st and 2nd ed core classes appear on release.

Well, not the Assassin.  Or illusionist, per se.  Or psionicist.  

4th ed did eliminate classes but that may not have bene the only problem more the scale of it IDK as they nuked 5/11 3.5 classes and several races a s well which had been in the game since 1st ed such as the Gnome.

It was more a result of the 'everything is core' strategy.  The PH1 didn't have everything, because the intent was to have a PH2, 3, 4, etc... possibly up to 8 or 10!  The gnome appeared in the PH2, prettymuch every 1e & 2e class was there in the end, the only one not as a full class being the Illusionist, a school specialty like it was in 1e.

The Paladin and Ranger have been in all editions and 4th ed cut the Druid an Bard both of which had been in 1st-3rd ed.

Not cut, they were officially Core classes.  

So basically how do you cut a class, do you want to cut a class and should they ask to cut a class?

The idea of "every class from a PH1" makes a lot of sense.  "Every full Core class from a PH" would make /more/ sense, but, thanks to 4e, that'd be a lot of classes.

"Every class from a PH1 in the PH1" plus "every Core class from any edition presented as a full class, eventually" could be pretty good.

Sure, an Illusionist would be redundant (and likely inferior) with School of Illusion Wizards running around, but if it makes even one grognard happy, why not?  Figure out some way to make it work and balance it.



 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

 There does't seem to be any huge push to bring back the assassin and illusionist so your assessment of them being marginal classes probably is not to far off. PHB2 and 3 classes should not be included on release though as you would need the 4th ed classes and Duskblade, Beguiler, Dragon Shaman as well. Thats probably to many.

 It is also semantics claiming everything is core form 4th ed as everyone knows what is in the PHB will be regarded as core or the default classes even if they are labeled optional. Thats why I said short of a reboot Paladins and Rangers are defacto core classes now due to legacy reasons and they turn up in non D&D related games and have become an archtype. The Bard and Druid are more or less there as well and it was probably a mistake to cut them from the PHB for 4th ed on release as they had been in every PHB1 from 1st-3rd. They also turn up in non D&D games so the archtype is  a strong one perhaps due to D&D itself. Paladins, Rangers also turn up in console based JRPGs, RPGs and MMORPGs.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Well when it comed to the illusionist i can only talk about ADnD 2nd as i have not played editions before that.
 
the AdnD 2nd edition illusion specialist wizard seems pretty well represented in the school of ilusion tradition.

+1 on saves vs ilusions has been replaced with advantage on saves vs illusions

enemies sufer a -1 penalty on saves against your illusions is replaced with the dc adainst your illusions is increased by 2.

+1 ilusion spell per spell level has been replaced with cantrips.
yes the +1 spell per spell level is stronger but remember that that benifit came at the cost of being barred from the necromantic evocation and abjuration schools.
 
Sign In to post comments