Folks still play Fantasy 1e?

[TheEvilDM]

Not meaning to start any wars or anything, just a general question.

I play a lot of Palladium games and I recently was talking about going back to Fantasy. I favor 1e over 2e as that's what I cut my teeth on and I really enjoyed it. Nothing wrong with 2e, I just never got into it.

Anyhow, when I mentioned it to a few people they gave me grumbles and a lot of "why not just play 2e?"

Is this just a matter of edition preference much like how D&D has their edition "Wars".

Also if anyone has some great 1e resources with house rules and fun things they've created, I'd appreciate seeing it

thanks

[Library Ogre]

I know some folk around here prefer 1e for a variety of reasons. One often cited is the different hand to hands, which really helped warrior-types shine, especially since, IIRC, non-warriors didn't get automatic parry.

I tend to think in 2e, and have lost familiarity with 1e, but I don't have a problem with it, and like a few things from there better (like the size of ogres and the longevity of changelings)

[TheEvilDM]

I know some folk around here prefer 1e for a variety of reasons. One often cited is the different hand to hands, which really helped warrior-types shine, especially since, IIRC, non-warriors didn't get automatic parry.

I tend to think in 2e, and have lost familiarity with 1e, but I don't have a problem with it, and like a few things from there better (like the size of ogres and the longevity of changelings)

thanks Mark. I have no issue with playing the edition you like. I was just curious why I get flack sometimes.

[Library Ogre]

I know some folk around here prefer 1e for a variety of reasons. One often cited is the different hand to hands, which really helped warrior-types shine, especially since, IIRC, non-warriors didn't get automatic parry.

I tend to think in 2e, and have lost familiarity with 1e, but I don't have a problem with it, and like a few things from there better (like the size of ogres and the longevity of changelings)

thanks Mark. I have no issue with playing the edition you like. I was just curious why I get flack sometimes.

Because people are *****.

[TheEvilDM]

I can agree on that. I play what I like, you play what you like.. we all get along

[kiralon]

I can agree on that. I play what I like, you play what you like.. we all get along

+1

I play heavily modded first ed for a variety of reasons, including it was the one i started with.
I have er borrowed rules from a lot of different games, up to and including whole systems of magic. 1st ed wizards were a little depressing, and second ed wizards even more so (but you can play either, the former is a wizard, the latter a sorcerer).
I have 3 or so extra stats
The world has developed from what it is in the book as i keep things in the game that players have done. Also as i started with just the main book and shortly followed thereafter by the old ones book really only Timiro fully matches what's in the books. All the other places have truly been modified by the extra books but have a lot of the content i made before the books were released. I still have the original map i made for the eastern territories (The disputed lands for me are at the bottleneck with the mountains there at the border between gnw and et)
The Western Empire is basically tsurani culture - with vampires.
Ophids Grasslands has an odd setup, it has 2 main cultures, one that looks like civilised man, and one of clannish horsemen, The civilised men live in the the one city at the south, the rest of the ophids grasslands has nomadic horseman. The city is designed as a trap to lock an army (from lotd) into fighting it and then the clansman strike from behind, and as they both get on really well they trade a lot with each other, the city has a nominal king and the clans have clan lords but they don't have leadership issues as the Super special Horses (remnants of the fairy horses from the lotd garrisons) actually run the country. Ever seen a warhorse with taekwando?
I also developed the fairies quite a lot more, and delved heavily into the old ones and the things they got up to.

I could go on but if you PM me i can email you some bits and pieces to see if you like any of it.

[TheEvilDM]

I could go on but if you PM me i can email you some bits and pieces to see if you like any of it.

SOLD! coming right up, a PM with my email

[Kraynic]

I was just curious why I get flack sometimes.

It wouldn't surprise me if it is for 2 reasons (assuming a certain sort of player):

1. Physical Training: In 1E there are no skills (that I can think of anyway) that aren't O.C.C. skills (like Acrobatics/Tumbling) that raise physical stats. In 2E, you can stack stuff like that up if you wish. You also can't buy better Hand to Hand training with an extra skill slot to make your non-man of arms fight like a soldier (or whatever).

2. Restricted Spell Casting: In 2E, the P.P.E. system definitely boosted the casting ability of magic wielders. While I understand that the cost of spells does scale up for the upper level ones, there is a lot of utility in the levels 1-5 spells, and you start out being able to cast quite a number of those per day if you have the spell knowledge to do so. There is also the change to psionics being level based and unlocking as you progress in 1E to being able to choose the powers you want to have from the start.

I can definitely see someone being used to that sort of starting power not being excited about 1E.

As far as house rules, most of mine are fairly small, but there are a couple that might be worth mentioning.

First of all, I took pretty much all of the powers of the beastmaster class from the Yin-Sloth Jungles book and gave them to druids. They are mostly priest-like abilities that only work on animals, so I thought it fit. I haven't given them the animal companion, because druids already get the familiar anyway. It just seemed to me that druids needed a little something more, and that seemed to fit the theme. I don't use any of the classes from the Yin-Sloth book, so there aren't any beastmasters to complain about druids getting their toys.

I also wanted healers to be a bit more appealing to play and have a definite use in the world. First, I gave them psychic surgery as a level 5 ability, because it seems like an ability that they should have. I didn't take it away from the psionic list though. I also use permanent injury charts in my games, which get rolled on any time you get dropped below 0 hp. Those injuries (and accompanying attribute damage) can only be cured with psychic surgery, so you need a lvl 5 healer or lvl 6 mind mage to get that taken care of.

[TheEvilDM]

I was just curious why I get flack sometimes.

It wouldn't surprise me if it is for 2 reasons (assuming a certain sort of player):

1. Physical Training: In 1E there are no skills (that I can think of anyway) that aren't O.C.C. skills (like Acrobatics/Tumbling) that raise physical stats. In 2E, you can stack stuff like that up if you wish. You also can't buy better Hand to Hand training with an extra skill slot to make your non-man of arms fight like a soldier (or whatever).

2. Restricted Spell Casting: In 2E, the P.P.E. system definitely boosted the casting ability of magic wielders. While I understand that the cost of spells does scale up for the upper level ones, there is a lot of utility in the levels 1-5 spells, and you start out being able to cast quite a number of those per day if you have the spell knowledge to do so. There is also the change to psionics being level based and unlocking as you progress in 1E to being able to choose the powers you want to have from the start.

I can definitely see someone being used to that sort of starting power not being excited about 1E.

Interesting. I have the 2e book, but just never dove into it in detail, so this is helpful thank you.

As far as house rules, most of mine are fairly small, but there are a couple that might be worth mentioning.

First of all, I took pretty much all of the powers of the beastmaster class from the Yin-Sloth Jungles book and gave them to druids. They are mostly priest-like abilities that only work on animals, so I thought it fit. I haven't given them the animal companion, because druids already get the familiar anyway. It just seemed to me that druids needed a little something more, and that seemed to fit the theme. I don't use any of the classes from the Yin-Sloth book, so there aren't any beastmasters to complain about druids getting their toys.

I also wanted healers to be a bit more appealing to play and have a definite use in the world. First, I gave them psychic surgery as a level 5 ability, because it seems like an ability that they should have. I didn't take it away from the psionic list though. I also use permanent injury charts in my games, which get rolled on any time you get dropped below 0 hp. Those injuries (and accompanying attribute damage) can only be cured with psychic surgery, so you need a lvl 5 healer or lvl 6 mind mage to get that taken care of.

Cool ideas. I may steal the beastmaster abilities for druids, I like it.

[kiralon]

@theevildm - sent

%99 of my players who are using men at arms take the forced march/running combo
Running - adds 3d4+4 to speed and +1 PE

[TheEvilDM]

@theevildm - sent

%99 of my players who are using men at arms take the forced march/running combo
Running - adds 3d4+4 to speed and +1 PE

Yes thank you for the wonderful docs you've shared and your advice

[Hotrod]

Not meaning to start any wars or anything, just a general question.

I play a lot of Palladium games and I recently was talking about going back to Fantasy. I favor 1e over 2e as that's what I cut my teeth on and I really enjoyed it. Nothing wrong with 2e, I just never got into it.

Anyhow, when I mentioned it to a few people they gave me grumbles and a lot of "why not just play 2e?"

Is this just a matter of edition preference much like how D&D has their edition "Wars".

Also if anyone has some great 1e resources with house rules and fun things they've created, I'd appreciate seeing it

thanks

Both editions have their good points and drawbacks, and I'd be happy to play either.

2nd Edition's character creation is more flexible and interesting. The ability to build physical abilities through skill selection presents an interesting trade-off for players: do they prefer to gain another ability with a skill selection or get better at combat? P.P.E. makes the full range of magic more interesting than the "XX spells per day" system of 1st Edition. In general, I have more fun making and playing 2nd Edition characters than I do 1st Edition characters.

That said, 2nd Edition has its issues. There are two character classes that became significantly less interesting and viable in 2nd Edition: healers and druids, both of which have profound problems in 2nd Edition that make them deficient in their own specialties. There's also a sense of each class being more unique due to limited skill lists and class-specific hand-to-hand skills.

The biggest difference, though, is the inclusion of physical S.D.C. without changing damage. This tends to prolong combat and make it somewhat more predictable, which can be good for people who otherwise worry about their characters dying too easily, but can be bad for people who like the sense of danger in 1st Edition's combat. As a player, this makes me tend to focus on ways to shorten combat as much as possible by choosing skills, abilities, and weapons that enable disabling attacks and increase damage more than I did with 1st Edition characters. Without that kind of focus, 1st Edition combat is generally more exciting than 2nd Edition combat.

[Veknironth]

Well, I play 2nd edition but with 1st edition hand to hand tables, no SDC, and the 1st edition rules that non-men-at arms only have access to H2H Basic, and cannot take paired weapons.

-Vek
"Else, there is no game rules reason to select a man-at-arms."

[TheEvilDM]

Thanks guy for all the feedback and stuff.

[Hotrod]

Well, I play 2nd edition but with 1st edition hand to hand tables, no SDC, and the 1st edition rules that non-men-at arms only have access to H2H Basic, and cannot take paired weapons.

-Vek
"Else, there is no game rules reason to select a man-at-arms."

A thought occurred to me as I read this post for a new house rule related to melee combat. I posted about it my thread dedicated to the subject. The gist is this: Unless you're a man-at-arms, you can only select W.P.s for items that are also plausible/viable tools for your character. This would limit most non-men-at-arms to W.P.'s like knife and staff, while giving them the ability to branch out to a few others if they also take a prerequisite skill.

[kiralon]

Well, I play 2nd edition but with 1st edition hand to hand tables, no SDC, and the 1st edition rules that non-men-at arms only have access to H2H Basic, and cannot take paired weapons.

-Vek
"Else, there is no game rules reason to select a man-at-arms."

A thought occurred to me as I read this post for a new house rule related to melee combat. I posted about it my thread dedicated to the subject. The gist is this: Unless you're a man-at-arms, you can only select W.P.s for items that are also plausible/viable tools for your character. This would limit most non-men-at-arms to W.P.'s like knife and staff, while giving them the ability to branch out to a few others if they also take a prerequisite skill.

I find the no automatic parry for non men at arms works well

[ZorValachan]

I prefer 1st edition with a magic point system I made myself.

People having SDC and physical skills boosting attributes as well as SDC along with Armor not changing to match it throws things out of whack IMO. Soft Leather armor is completely useless with 20 SDC. 1 hit and I've wasted 75 gold. Not wearing the armor and I get hit with my SDC and boosts from physical skills and a Priest in the group - now I get 20 points of damage and healed up in a couple minutes for free. it's bad in 1st edition, but much worse in 2nd. That's why a common house rule is multiplying armor SDC by 5 or 10. I kept armor SDC the same, but have light armor take only 1 point of damage for every full 5 points rolled and heavy armor do 1 point of armor damage for every full 10 points rolled. excess is ignored (it chalk it up to armor being made to withstand damage) So far it's working very well.

Simple lists of skills Elective and Secondary is easier than lots of redundant skills. Even 1ed started going down the path at book 8 (Palming, Sleight of Hand, and Concealment all let you hide things in your hands) as well as adding those attribute boosts (running).

It's very interesting to read the main book where KS states, "Many systems have provisions for such skills as street sense, diplomacy, bribery, gambling, haggling, and so on. While these skills do indeed seem appropriate I feel that their inclusion eliminates the players' freedom to role play . I feel that such skills actually reduces the degree of role-playing and restricts the imagination. A player with skills like those mentioned above will tend to rely on his rolled statistics ("oh, he has to believe my character because his diplomacy skill is 80070"). Instead I would like to see a player actually concoct some wild, but convincing yarn or scheme that creates and promotes real interaction between characters." and then see Bartering, Streetwise, and Gambling turn up as as skills in book 8.

I streamlined the skills myself combining skills into one as well as dropping attribute boosters altogether.