Ive seen quite a few comments here about 1st edition being better, but Ive never played it myself (only 2nd).
So out of curiosity what elements or rules would you use from 1st edition to replace in 2nd edition?
1st vs 2nd edition
Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones
-
Reagren Wright
- Palladium Books® Freelance Writer
- Posts: 3248
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2002 2:01 am
- Comment: The greatest part of the writer's time is spent in reading, in order to write: a man will turn over half a library to make one book. - Samuel Johnson, 1775
- Location: LaPorte, In USA
Some spells were way better in 1st edition then 2nd. Mini-Fireballs use
to be 1D4 per level of experience, but you fire 1 fireball per level.
So a 3rd level warlock fire 3 3D4 mini-fireballs.
Metamorphosis spell were just spells you cast. You could cast the
spell and turn a guy into a frog and he was a frog. You didn't need
to way all day to cast it as a ritual spell.
The psionics were not all that good. But some where down right nasty.
One of the Bio-Manipulation was called Death. 20 ISP and even if you
saved it did 1/3 the damage. It did 20 points of damage +1 per per
ISP spent. So if you spent 30 ISP you did 30 points of damage.
Stat rolls were fixed. I mean the Highest attributes humans could get
where 24. And when you combine that with the limited HtH bonuses,
you where screwed. If you fought big nasties like elementals (10th
level mini-fireballs
Although I loved 1st edition, I was thankful when 2nd came along.
SDC was nice and so was having more then 1 attack per minute.
to be 1D4 per level of experience, but you fire 1 fireball per level.
So a 3rd level warlock fire 3 3D4 mini-fireballs.
Metamorphosis spell were just spells you cast. You could cast the
spell and turn a guy into a frog and he was a frog. You didn't need
to way all day to cast it as a ritual spell.
The psionics were not all that good. But some where down right nasty.
One of the Bio-Manipulation was called Death. 20 ISP and even if you
saved it did 1/3 the damage. It did 20 points of damage +1 per per
ISP spent. So if you spent 30 ISP you did 30 points of damage.
Stat rolls were fixed. I mean the Highest attributes humans could get
where 24. And when you combine that with the limited HtH bonuses,
you where screwed. If you fought big nasties like elementals (10th
level mini-fireballs
Although I loved 1st edition, I was thankful when 2nd came along.
SDC was nice and so was having more then 1 attack per minute.
-
drewkitty ~..~
- Monk
- Posts: 17782
- Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Eastvale, calif
- Contact:
-
Veknironth
- Hero
- Posts: 1571
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bowie, MD USA
- Contact:
Well, the things from the first edition that we use in the second. OK, here goes:
SDC: Basically, we don't use it. It works for structures such as houses, ships, and armor just fine. However, when you start to add on S.D.C. for physicals you end up with characters who have over a hundred HP. Also, monsters have hundreds of HP. One of the good things about the Palladium Fantasy RPG™ is that any strong guy with a sword can kill a man. The rules are supposed to simulate reality and we beleive it is more realistic for a person to pass out or die when a sword has been stuffed into his/her gut than for the person to be able to take 7 arrows before they start to have body damage.
Skills: Boxing we do not use. The art of boxing as we know it today was not part of the training regimen of medival warriors. They did not float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. They hacked, chopped, bit, etc.. There were fights that involved men in a ring punching eachother, but this was a brawl kind of like a Tyson fight.
As far as Weapon Proficiencies, we stuck with the old ones. The charts offered more progress as you went through levels. You picked up something every level for most of the old charts. This is not too drastic of a change, but the archery skill is. Firing a straight bow and a crossbow are entirely different. We use the old system for these especially since the bow and crossbow are treated as different weapons.
Hand to hand: We do not use the new rules that limit hand to hand to only 4 styles. I thought that was one of the best things about the game; the different classes had different bonuses for combat. Now you can have a Diabolist who can fight better than a Paladin. I'm sorry, but I don't believe it. The system in the 2nd edition works great for games where melee combat is not as integral to the game such as Robotech or Rifts, but not here. We also ignore the O.C.C. bonuses that were supposed to differentiate between classes. With this system, an Assassin would have 2 or 3 more attacks than any other class after 6th level or so. Last, we have limited Paired Weapons to men-at-arms characters only. This makes a difference between fighters and men of magic who can fight. If we played by the new rules, there would be nothing but wizards, preists, and mind mages weilding 2 swords and laying waste to anything in front of them in melee combat. That skill is the most effective for combat and it should be an advantage for warriors.
-Vek
"Anything else?"
SDC: Basically, we don't use it. It works for structures such as houses, ships, and armor just fine. However, when you start to add on S.D.C. for physicals you end up with characters who have over a hundred HP. Also, monsters have hundreds of HP. One of the good things about the Palladium Fantasy RPG™ is that any strong guy with a sword can kill a man. The rules are supposed to simulate reality and we beleive it is more realistic for a person to pass out or die when a sword has been stuffed into his/her gut than for the person to be able to take 7 arrows before they start to have body damage.
Skills: Boxing we do not use. The art of boxing as we know it today was not part of the training regimen of medival warriors. They did not float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. They hacked, chopped, bit, etc.. There were fights that involved men in a ring punching eachother, but this was a brawl kind of like a Tyson fight.
As far as Weapon Proficiencies, we stuck with the old ones. The charts offered more progress as you went through levels. You picked up something every level for most of the old charts. This is not too drastic of a change, but the archery skill is. Firing a straight bow and a crossbow are entirely different. We use the old system for these especially since the bow and crossbow are treated as different weapons.
Hand to hand: We do not use the new rules that limit hand to hand to only 4 styles. I thought that was one of the best things about the game; the different classes had different bonuses for combat. Now you can have a Diabolist who can fight better than a Paladin. I'm sorry, but I don't believe it. The system in the 2nd edition works great for games where melee combat is not as integral to the game such as Robotech or Rifts, but not here. We also ignore the O.C.C. bonuses that were supposed to differentiate between classes. With this system, an Assassin would have 2 or 3 more attacks than any other class after 6th level or so. Last, we have limited Paired Weapons to men-at-arms characters only. This makes a difference between fighters and men of magic who can fight. If we played by the new rules, there would be nothing but wizards, preists, and mind mages weilding 2 swords and laying waste to anything in front of them in melee combat. That skill is the most effective for combat and it should be an advantage for warriors.
-Vek
"Anything else?"
-
maasenstodt
- Adventurer
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 11:52 pm
- Location: The Gateway City
I wish that the 2nd Ed. game that I'm playing in would integrate some 1st Ed. concepts, but alas, I cannot change things nor escape. 
I suppose that someday down the road, once the current campaign has concluded, I might run my own PFRPG game using 1st Ed. entirely, just to give everybody a taste of what the game was like at its best.
And what are those concepts that make it stand out? I will state up front that Vek provided most of the key things. Briefly, SDC is unrealistic and makes combat take longer than it should, thus its exclusion in 1st Ed. is great (this also has the side effect of making armor more useful). WPs are much more realistic and useful in 1st Ed.. Class specific Hand-to-Hand combat skills are simply fantastic, and 2nd Ed. doesn't have 'em. What's more, they fit the classes well (non-combat types just aren't going to do as well in a fight, period) and don't introduce 8 attacks per character per round. For me 1-4 is plenty, particularly without the need to hack and slash through 50 SDC before you can inflict any real damage.
Another bonus is that I prefer the more arcane system of magic in 1st Ed. I just don't care for spell points in my games, which is what PPE essentially is. To me, it makes the game seem like it's being played on a console. I'll happily take either spell memorization (ala The Dying Earth) or just a limited number of spells per day over 2nd Ed.'s system. Not only is it easier to manage (no "How many points did I recover by resting for 45 minutes" questions) but I like the subtle changes that it introduces into gameplay; hearing a player say "I don't know if I should cast the spell because I don't have the energy to cast many more today" sounds a lot better to me than "I don't know if I should cast the spell because I'm down to 20 PPE." Finally, the mystery involved in being able to only cast so many spells in a given period, regardless of their potency, is something that strikes me as a natural for something as mysterious and unknown as magic.
I suppose that someday down the road, once the current campaign has concluded, I might run my own PFRPG game using 1st Ed. entirely, just to give everybody a taste of what the game was like at its best.
And what are those concepts that make it stand out? I will state up front that Vek provided most of the key things. Briefly, SDC is unrealistic and makes combat take longer than it should, thus its exclusion in 1st Ed. is great (this also has the side effect of making armor more useful). WPs are much more realistic and useful in 1st Ed.. Class specific Hand-to-Hand combat skills are simply fantastic, and 2nd Ed. doesn't have 'em. What's more, they fit the classes well (non-combat types just aren't going to do as well in a fight, period) and don't introduce 8 attacks per character per round. For me 1-4 is plenty, particularly without the need to hack and slash through 50 SDC before you can inflict any real damage.
Another bonus is that I prefer the more arcane system of magic in 1st Ed. I just don't care for spell points in my games, which is what PPE essentially is. To me, it makes the game seem like it's being played on a console. I'll happily take either spell memorization (ala The Dying Earth) or just a limited number of spells per day over 2nd Ed.'s system. Not only is it easier to manage (no "How many points did I recover by resting for 45 minutes" questions) but I like the subtle changes that it introduces into gameplay; hearing a player say "I don't know if I should cast the spell because I don't have the energy to cast many more today" sounds a lot better to me than "I don't know if I should cast the spell because I'm down to 20 PPE." Finally, the mystery involved in being able to only cast so many spells in a given period, regardless of their potency, is something that strikes me as a natural for something as mysterious and unknown as magic.
Personally like 1st Ed better, no SDC for humans, makes for more deadly combat, you don;t hear players saying things like "you kidding, his lance can only do maximun 20 points, I simul him" hate SDC, like the individual bonuses for each OCC, no wizards with great H2H abilities, my players know that if the wizard draws his sword things are really bad !, this being said, I do use PPE in my games, just cross reference from HU or BTS.
I let my wife play rifts once....................she shot me in the back of the head with a naruni plasma pistol, gaffa taped a type 4 fusion block to my nether regions, and kicked my ass off the apc travelling at 100 MPH
gimme a break, my pc is a playa, not me.
gimme a break, my pc is a playa, not me.
-
Secret Cow Level
- D-Bee
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: Burnsville, MN
I never understand people who state that spell casters can fight just as well as Palladins when most of the spell casting O.C.C.s can't even learn HtH Martial Arts or HtH Assassin and O.C.C.s like the Wizard and Summoner have to give up other skill picks just to get HtH Basic. The only spell caster I could see that was allowed to learn HtH Martial Arts was the Warlock and even then they have to sacrafice three other skill picks to get it.
Moo! Moo? Moo.
Member #00008 of the Bring Back the LBBs T5 Edition.
I've just had some brandy cokes and I feel fine!
Member #00008 of the Bring Back the LBBs T5 Edition.
I've just had some brandy cokes and I feel fine!
Hmm seems its not so much the system that is wrong but the players. You see I personally prefer 2nd ed because while there were some things I liked about first ed mainly the fact that you could end up with a Master Psy with any class. Twas amusing when I had a Master Psychic Wolfen Merc and no he wasn't munckin. But Players need to play it realisticly or the GM needs to use those nifty optional damage tables to teach them about the hazards of combat. Just because the system has SDC doesn't make it that bad. A player thinking such things
Is a problem that can be very easily corrected using the damage tables at the beginning of the book. When players learn that combat is can be harmful to them whether or not they took enough damage to get into their HP or not. They will play apropriately. I myself have always done this. Unless of course I am playing a char that doesn't feel pain such as my Vorloc Assassin. *goes off reminiscing about the adv's he had with that char*
Rimmer wrote: players saying things like "you kidding, his lance can only do maximun 20 points, I simul him"
Is a problem that can be very easily corrected using the damage tables at the beginning of the book. When players learn that combat is can be harmful to them whether or not they took enough damage to get into their HP or not. They will play apropriately. I myself have always done this. Unless of course I am playing a char that doesn't feel pain such as my Vorloc Assassin. *goes off reminiscing about the adv's he had with that char*
-
Veknironth
- Hero
- Posts: 1571
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bowie, MD USA
- Contact:
Well, let's face it. The single most important combat skill in PFRPG is paired weapons. The differnece between two of the same level with HTH Basic vs HTH MArtial arts is not nearly as great as someone with Paired Weapons vs someone who doesn't. When you allow non-man-at-arms to take paired weapons, you really take away the fighters' advantage.
-Vek
"Also, SDC sucks."
-Vek
"Also, SDC sucks."
as far as mages being able to take paired weapons that is up to the gm if they don't want mages taking it then they can rule that mages can't take it but if they want to allow a mage to spend the skills into it then that is their perogative. and I disagree with the statement that sdc sucks. I Have no problem with SDC and I don't really see what the big fuss over it is. Again it comes down to GM's and players alike using common sense when it comes to combat.
-
Veknironth
- Hero
- Posts: 1571
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bowie, MD USA
- Contact:
Well, certainly the GM can change the rules to make it work for the group. However, if you need to change something then it's probably not working that well. The question is what would we take from the 1st edition? I think that the combat from 1st edition is vastly better, and I don't remember anyone house ruling it.
-Vek
"If you have to house rule SDC to make it usable, there might be problems with it."
-Vek
"If you have to house rule SDC to make it usable, there might be problems with it."
-
maasenstodt
- Adventurer
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 11:52 pm
- Location: The Gateway City
I never said house rule it. There are tables in the front of the PF main book that are for taking a certain amount of damage and the effects of said damage. They list the tables as optional but it would be a good idea to use them if your players look and say "Bah it won't even dent my SDC"
But the whole point that we're making is that if you didn't have SDC, you wouldn't need to use all the optional tables or have to apply additional "common sense." The rules as they existed were reasonably realistic, concise and made sense without additional overhead.
What's more, the point about the lack of house rules for 1st Ed. PFRPG is as good of one as I've heard. While the game has certainly picked up more players over time, I think that were 1st Ed. rules still in use, you wouldn't have nearly as many websites suggesting this tweak or that house rule. Indeed, I think that as Palladium's ruleset has gotten more bloated over time, so too has the need for house rules. Of course, it goes without saying this isn't because the new additions have added clarity or made things simplier or even better.
-
Veknironth
- Hero
- Posts: 1571
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Bowie, MD USA
- Contact:
Well, the thing is that the 1st edition was set up for the fantasy setting. The 2nd edition was an attempt to bring the game more in line with the big seller, the hated Rifts. It doesn't work as well, for the reasons we have listed. Of course, in defense of 2nd edition there were fewer people who had the game, and this site didn't exist. Also, 1st edition didn't have anything against which to compare. Who knows what we would say if the editions came out in the opposite order?
Be that as it may, I still feel that the portions of the 1st edition I listed are better.
-Vek
"Hybrids work well."
Be that as it may, I still feel that the portions of the 1st edition I listed are better.
-Vek
"Hybrids work well."
-
KromeLizard
- D-Bee
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: New York, NY
-
Janus
- Dungeon Crawler
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 4:40 pm
- Location: If there is a bright center to the universe then I am in Uranus
tombs of Gersidi make 1st the best.
I like the differences between the classes. i mena if you look at the classes now everyone is just about the same the only difference is how many skills they start with. In the original the skills were sort of limited, they did not have this huge list of things to pick from. Also the hand to hands were different from class to class.
but mostly it is just the missing Tombs adventure.
I like the differences between the classes. i mena if you look at the classes now everyone is just about the same the only difference is how many skills they start with. In the original the skills were sort of limited, they did not have this huge list of things to pick from. Also the hand to hands were different from class to class.
but mostly it is just the missing Tombs adventure.
There is always a 5%chance of anything happening...even a monkey can crawl out of your butt.
Flamethrowers, that's what we need. The army has them, why can't we have them too?
I am the King of Thoughtless Wishing.
I nominate you for Fan Defensive Lineman of the year. - Geronimo 2.0
Flamethrowers, that's what we need. The army has them, why can't we have them too?
I am the King of Thoughtless Wishing.
I nominate you for Fan Defensive Lineman of the year. - Geronimo 2.0
-
Natalya
-
Goliath Strongarm
- Hero
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: AZ
Natalya wrote:What about the, ah, more interesting insanities listed in the 1st edition that were dropped in all subsequent books?
Sexual Deviation Chart. Gods, I loved that. As a GM. As a player, whenever I got the chart, I took my character, found the biggest, nastiest, toughest guy around.. and started a fight.
Well, SOME of those werent too horrible. Most were.
--
GS
