Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

How complex is DnD 2e?


Other RPGs

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I haven't played it myself aside from the pc incarnations Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape: Torment.

Is it more or less complex than 3.5 or Pathfinder? How long does character creation take?


It is utterly simple compared to the 3 editions. A character takes from three minutes to 15 minutes to make, mechanics wise. Still, a lot will be familiar.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd say about the same level of complexity. There are, in general, less character-building decisions (unless using the Player's Option books) with most abilities being determined by class/kit, although allocating thief and bard skill points can be a pain. Where the complexity comes in is the numerous different mechanics: non-weapon proficiencies are different than thief/bard skills, while rangers have a fixed progression by level for Hide in Shadows and Move Silently; paladins and rangers advance spellcasting at different rates; mages/specialist wizards gain 8th- and 9th-level spells, while clerics and druids are limited to 7th-level spells; fighters, rangers, cleric, and thieves all gain different types of followers at certain levels; multi-classing (demi-humans only, closer to 3.5 gestalt) is different than dual-classing (humans only, closer to 3.5 multi-classing, but with much heavier restrictions); classes advance levels at different rates for the same experience points; etc.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Out of all the D&D's the most entertaining initiative system in my opinion. Still likely my favourite D&D, but then again they had a wonderful array of settings (Ravenloft & Dark Sun tops my list).


If you play the basic game w/o add-ons, it is fast and flexible. I recommend a DM screen, though, because it's hard to remember the different mechanics for things like saving throws, skill checks, etc.


Thanks for the replies, people!

I've now been graced with the luck to be able to read the rulebooks!

Assuming one were to attempt to run this with a bunch of people. Just a short adventure levels 1-2 maybe. Should I bother with non-combat proficiencies?

After having briefly flipped through a few rulebooks (player's guide and the gm book) it seems that as Dragonchess above says the complexity lies in having a bunch of different systems for the different classes. On the other hand there is nothing as complex as feats and there are far less combat options available. I found nothing about grappling, for example, though I might have just missed those rules.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Unarmed combat is rolled on a table - you can KO and get holds etc.

I wouldn't bother with nwp to start with, not really required up front.

Read and re-read the saving throw descriptions. The old 1e/2e system had a lot more going for it than people remember I believe. You have more options to challenging players, more than the REF/FORT/WILL of 3e.

Envious of your upcoming game!

Star Voter 2013

In december I willreunite with a couple of persons of my old group. I thought to play PF but decided to play 2e for the simplicity :p.


I'm liking these initiative rules. They feel a bit backwards with how it is better to roll low, but the mechanics are pretty clever.

I'm going to skip proficiencies altogether to keep it simple.


I tried 2e once with pals.

We got TPK'ed by Carrion Crawlers.

Still, it was an interesting set of rules.


Sissyl wrote:
It is utterly simple compared to the 3 editions. A character takes from three minutes to 15 minutes to make, mechanics wise.

To be fair, I think some of the simplicity comes from the fact that some rules tend to get ignored, in my experience (e.g. weapon vs. armor adjustments, unarmed combat rules, etc.).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013

3.0 unified the d20 success mechanic. Prior to that there were many different mechanics to determine success or failure. If you don't use any of the Player's Option or class kit books, character creation is simpler than in 3.X. But in my experience, actual play is much more complicated.

Star Voter 2013

You can use mechanics from d20 to simplify some aspects of AD&D, for example instead of thaco you could use BAB and armor increasing AC (instead of decreasing it like in 2e). Mathematically the probability of hiting would be the same as in 2e but with a more familar mechanics.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ganryu wrote:

I'm liking these initiative rules. They feel a bit backwards with how it is better to roll low, but the mechanics are pretty clever.

I'm going to skip proficiencies altogether to keep it simple.

The initiative rules were a great way to stop the 'one weapon or spell fits all' approach even within a fight. Due to auto-disruption of a spell if the caster was damaged a faster weapon was much better against a caster (except those pesky Power Words - all SF 1). Caster vs caster fights were far more tactical - go for the fight ending high level spell or the fast little spell to disrupt the other caster? We did however find that a fighter (esp. a Half-Giant [Dark Suns]) with high strength and darts was a little over the top.

Once you get the basics you'll see that NWP aren't that tricky to implement and are rather quick and simple to use in game (roll stat or less). Trying to remember feat combos and interactions with spells etc under 3/3.5e is WAY more to remember and keep track of than the several 'systems' of 1/2e.

THAC0 for all people vilify it is quick in game. THAC0 - d20 = AC hit; when I went to school they taught us both adding AND subtraction AND what's more that if you went less then zero you could use negative numbers, which worked surprising like positive numbers but with a little '-' in front. ;)

I think I sit firmly in no-persons land. The 'grognards' of 1e and the 'unificationists' of 3/3.5e seem not to want to traffic with the 'rationalists' of 2e. 'Zeb' Cook did a marvellous job - then again you only have to look at Star Frontiers to see the man had talent.

One thing that is difficult for any editionist to deny is that the 'black' Monstrous Manual is perhaps the best of the D&D monster books ever produced.

Looking forward to the reprint.

S.


hogarth wrote:
To be fair, I think some of the simplicity comes from the fact that some rules tend to get ignored, in my experience (e.g. weapon vs. armor adjustments, unarmed combat rules, etc.).

And to be fair-er, most of these were listed as optional rules ;)

[edit] looking back at the book, there were quite a few "optional rules". I didn't remember 2E was that modular. Of the ones that surprised me the most...

  • The bard class is stated as "an optional character class that can be used if your DM allows"

  • Nonweapon Proficiencies are core, but there's an option to "not use them" and use what the player knows instead.

  • Spell Components are listed as optional rule

  • Weapon type vs. Armour (that one I remembered being optional)

  • Individual Initiative rolls are optional

  • Weapon Speed is listed as optional rule

  • Parrying and Critical Hits are optional rules

  • ditto for Jogging, Running and Encumbrance

  • Hovering on the Death's Door (unconscious at 0 hp, dying at -10)

  • Exceeding level limits (that one I figured it would be optional too)

  • Artifacts and Relics were optional, and so were Command Words for wands and staves.

  • Individual XPs were apparently optional too.


  • 2nd ed. is still my favorite also. It had a lot of fun aspects to it and was very make it fun and don't become rules lawyers written right into it. Many people dislike the fact the DM was encouraged to discourage min/maxing. So that two hander specialist often got screwed if they didn't plan to be fighting in a small area. Imagine that! Why can't I swing a 6 foot sword in a 3 ft doorway, lol?


    Weapon speed was a favorite. Made a lot of sense to have faster weapons assist in acting sooner than heavier ones.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Stefan Hill wrote:
    when I went to school they taught us both adding AND subtraction AND what's more that if you went less then zero you could use negative numbers, which worked surprising like positive numbers but with a little '-' in front. ;)

    I came across some old DnD stuff recently, found a character sheet with an AC of -2........made me chuckle nostalgically. good times!

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Losing any DEX bonus during casting... I honesty to this very day do not see the issues that lead to much of what was to become 3e.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Video games, Stefan.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
    Video games, Stefan.

    As Metallatica said "sad but true"


    Stefan Hill wrote:
    One thing that is difficult for any editionist to deny is that the 'black' Monstrous Manual is perhaps the best of the D&D monster books ever produced.

    +1000

    Here is hoping they use the following books as inspiration for the 5E core rulebooks.

    1E DMG
    2E MM
    3E PHB

    Each one was the best of its kind in comparison with its other editions counterparts.


    It's only about 150 pages of rules, I managed to fit them all in my mini pocketbook so I can take them anywhere I go. I love 2nd edition rules system and had lots of fun with it. I can't wait for the reprinting of 2nd edition materials.

    Liberty's Edge

    Another thing I would point out to players. Espcially players who avoided playing any D&D before 3E is that monster encounters imo in 2e are more lethal. With certain monsters being immune to any damage unless its a magic weapon. To losing permanent levels to energy drain better to tell them upfront than have them go through a rude awakening so to speak.

    Star Voter 2013

    memorax wrote:
    Another thing I would point out to players. Espcially players who avoided playing any D&D before 3E is that monster encounters imo in 2e are more lethal. With certain monsters being immune to any damage unless its a magic weapon. To losing permanent levels to energy drain better to tell them upfront than have them go through a rude awakening so to speak.

    Magic resistance and magic imunities were nasty too.

    Liberty's Edge

    Nicos wrote:
    memorax wrote:
    Another thing I would point out to players. Espcially players who avoided playing any D&D before 3E is that monster encounters imo in 2e are more lethal. With certain monsters being immune to any damage unless its a magic weapon. To losing permanent levels to energy drain better to tell them upfront than have them go through a rude awakening so to speak.
    Magic resistance and magic imunities were nasty too.

    That they were. Don't forget that certain undead can age thepc and certain spells too. Not saying it's a bad system. Just that a DM needs to prepare players who are new to 2E or run the risk of a tpk.


    memorax wrote:
    Another thing I would point out to players. Espcially players who avoided playing any D&D before 3E is that monster encounters imo in 2e are more lethal. With certain monsters being immune to any damage unless its a magic weapon. To losing permanent levels to energy drain better to tell them upfront than have them go through a rude awakening so to speak.

    OTOH, if you have magic weapons there's none of this DR good/evil/silver/plastic/whatever nonsense.

    Liberty's Edge

    thejeff wrote:


    OTOH, if you have magic weapons there's none of this DR good/evil/silver/plastic/whatever nonsense.

    Very true. Yet if they don't it's easy for a group used to dealing with DR getting wiped out by a lower level monster because unlike DR in 3E the monsters take no damage.

    Another thing I would recommend houseruling is the effects of changing alignment in 2E. When it's volunatary the XP needed to get to a new level is doubled. When it's involuantary say because of a cursed item or spell no xp is gained until the pc alignment is returned. Which is imo somewhat harsh. Let's say a pc gets two loevles worth of xp he can't benefit from it because he not in control of his alignment. My recommandation either give half xp or full. It never quite made sense to me.

    Liberty's Edge

    I also suggest removing level limits for demihumans. Felt that the level limits were tacked on because imo the designers were unable or unwilling to flesh out humans as a playable race beyond "they get to go to any level".


    memorax wrote:
    I also suggest removing level limits for demihumans. Felt that the level limits were tacked on because imo the designers were unable or unwilling to flesh out humans as a playable race beyond "they get to go to any level".

    Yeah. Level limits always seemed like a really bad way to handle balance to me. You get all these cool abilities at low level, but we'll balance it by making you totally suck at high levels.

    Maybe it suits a particular style of game? Generally I'd make a guess at how high level the game was likely to get and play something that didn't hit limits by then.

    If all your games are classic megadungeon/sandboxy things where the only real objective is loot and power/see how long you can survive, then maybe that kind of balance question makes sense. Normally we played campaigns with plots, villains and goals, and rarely passed 10th level.

    OTOH, without level limits, the demi-humans become clearly better than humans, so humans may need a boost.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    thejeff wrote:

    .

    OTOH, without level limits, the demi-humans become clearly better than humans, so humans may need a boost.

    And hello 3e... When I read what Zeb has written in the 2e DMG as to the why and suggests not to remove the limits I don't really take issue. There are already optional rules in the 2e DMG to address concerns of demi-human level limits. We do use the optional rule where high stats can increase the level top out of demi-humans in our games - for example. That said, I knew of groups that just housed ruled the limits away, simple. We were always more RAW where possible. Zeb made a good case and we accepted it.

    S.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber

    I've always preferred the level limits for demihumans, no doubt because that's what I learnt.

    I didnt think it was about balance (the first couple of editions didnt seem particularly concerned about that at all, though I never played 2E, so that might have changed by then). Rather I thought is was about making the different races feel qualitatively different. (It never bothered me when race and class were blurred together either).

    In PF and 4E it always feels to me like there are a few "obvious" choices when it comes to race - predominantly determined by what mechanical advantages are attached to the specific race in question. It suits me better that choice of race is more about feel and less about mechanical tweaking. (Though that might just be that I pay more attention to mechanics in later editions as it's easier to distinguish between good and bad choices).


    Steve Geddes wrote:

    I've always preferred the level limits for demihumans, no doubt because that's what I learnt.

    I didnt think it was about balance (the first couple of editions didnt seem particularly concerned about that at all, though I never played 2E, so that might have changed by then). Rather I thought is was about making the different races feel qualitatively different. (It never bothered me when race and class were blurred together either).

    Well, 2E does say it's about balance.
    Quote:
    Given their numerous advantages, demi-humans would be the most attractive race -- no one would play a human.

    I'm not sure how well it worked, since as I said above, it gives you all the benefits up front, then shuts you down late in the game. Even more so in 2E than in 1E. It looks like most of the level limits got raised. Opened up some more combinations too.

    Steve Geddes wrote:
    In PF and 4E it always feels to me like there are a few "obvious" choices when it comes to race - predominantly determined by what mechanical advantages are attached to the specific race in question. It suits me better that choice of race is more about feel and less about mechanical tweaking. (Though that might just be that I pay more attention to mechanics in later editions as it's easier to distinguish between good and bad choices).

    It may seem to you that choice of race is more about feel than mechanical advantage in 2E, but that's basically because they locked down the choices for you. Rather than letting you play against type, play a race that isn't suited to a particular class, they just forbid it. There's no real tweaking to do, other than possibly trying to guess whether the campaign will end before you hit the level cap.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    thejeff wrote:


    (1) Well, 2E does say it's about balance.

    (2) It may seem to you that choice of race is more about feel than mechanical advantage in 2E, but that's basically because they locked down the choices for you. Rather than letting you play against type, play a race that isn't suited to a particular class, they just forbid it. There's no real tweaking to do, other than possibly trying to guess whether the campaign will end before you hit the level cap.

    (1) It was about balance, but not in the 3e+ sense. It was about world balance. If an Elf and a Human gain XP at the same rate why isn't every game world full of Elves with 100's of levels given their life span? Perhaps it is a mechanical cope out, but the level limits reflect the 'drive' or natural skill limitations of the demi-humans in various classes.

    (2) These 'lock downs' defined AD&D. Humans were the only race that had the Paladin spirit for example. What you call limitations I call choices. 3e+ still has choices or we could call them limitations or lock downs. A standard cleric can't choose from both arcane and divine spells each morning, so I need make a choice and be limited by it. In 3e my class limits my combat progression - yet another limitation.

    In 3e different limitations were introduced but they are no more or less limitations than those found in 1e, 2e, PF, 4e, or the upcoming D&D Next. A game without limitations is a game without rules.

    S.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Tales Subscriber
    thejeff wrote:
    Steve Geddes wrote:

    I've always preferred the level limits for demihumans, no doubt because that's what I learnt.

    I didnt think it was about balance (the first couple of editions didnt seem particularly concerned about that at all, though I never played 2E, so that might have changed by then). Rather I thought is was about making the different races feel qualitatively different. (It never bothered me when race and class were blurred together either).

    Well, 2E does say it's about balance.
    Quote:
    Given their numerous advantages, demi-humans would be the most attractive race -- no one would play a human.
    I'm not sure how well it worked, since as I said above, it gives you all the benefits up front, then shuts you down late in the game. Even more so in 2E than in 1E. It looks like most of the level limits got raised. Opened up some more combinations too.

    Yeah, as I said I dont know 2E. I just preferred the limitation by race, but that's as it was in AD&D and 0E. One gets used to what one learns, I guess. By the time 2E came out, it felt like a "T$R money grab" to my group, so we moved on to other games.

    Quote:
    Steve Geddes wrote:
    In PF and 4E it always feels to me like there are a few "obvious" choices when it comes to race - predominantly determined by what mechanical advantages are attached to the specific race in question. It suits me better that choice of race is more about feel and less about mechanical tweaking. (Though that might just be that I pay more attention to mechanics in later editions as it's easier to distinguish between good and bad choices).
    It may seem to you that choice of race is more about feel than mechanical advantage in 2E, but that's basically because they locked down the choices for you. Rather than letting you play against type, play a race that isn't suited to a particular class, they just forbid it. There's no real tweaking to do, other than possibly trying to guess whether the campaign will end before you hit the level cap.

    Yeah. I'm not someone who thinks more choices is always better, so that may be another reason the hardcoded limitations appeal to me.

    I prefer the customisation to come in characterisation of personality and story rather than in character abilities.


    Stefan Hill wrote:
    thejeff wrote:


    (1) Well, 2E does say it's about balance.

    (2) It may seem to you that choice of race is more about feel than mechanical advantage in 2E, but that's basically because they locked down the choices for you. Rather than letting you play against type, play a race that isn't suited to a particular class, they just forbid it. There's no real tweaking to do, other than possibly trying to guess whether the campaign will end before you hit the level cap.

    (1) It was about balance, but not in the 3e+ sense. It was about world balance. If an Elf and a Human gain XP at the same rate why isn't every game world full of Elves with 100's of levels given their life span? Perhaps it is a mechanical cope out, but the level limits reflect the 'drive' or natural skill limitations of the demi-humans in various classes.

    There is that, but it does also say "no one would play a human", so they were considering game balance as well.

    Stefan Hill wrote:

    (2) These 'lock downs' defined AD&D. Humans were the only race that had the Paladin spirit for example. What you call limitations I call choices. 3e+ still has choices or we could call them limitations or lock downs. A standard cleric can't choose from both arcane and divine spells each morning, so I need make a choice and be limited by it. In 3e my class limits my combat progression - yet another limitation.

    In 3e different limitations were introduced but they are no more or less limitations than those found in 1e, 2e, PF, 4e, or the upcoming D&D Next. A game without limitations is a game without rules.

    Not saying it's a bad thing, but responding to a claim about "obvious choices" of race in 3.x. Just saying that 1/2E weren't more open.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    We should mention that Thieves have the most freedom/choice in 2e of any of the editions.

    Star Voter 2013

    thieves were also incredible weak compared level by level against others classes. they level up really quick though.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Define weak? Every 2e fighter I played was rubbish at opening locks or climbing walls compared to thieves. The '3e/WoW' Rogue is not the concept that the original Thief was.

    Star Voter 2013

    Stefan Hill wrote:

    Define weak? Every 2e fighter I played was rubbish at opening locks or climbing walls compared to thieves. The '3e/WoW' Rogue is not the concept that the original Thief was.

    low hps (d6), low attack, low (hihg?) AC, and sneak attack was really really dificult to land. and even if you could delivere it, it does a weak damage. I mean, if the Op or someone in the party of the Op try to build a thief flanking buddy they would be dissapointed.

    they do their sneaky job really good though.

    Liberty's Edge

    If a better reason was given to level limits for demi-humans beyond game balance and "no one would want to play a human" it would be easier to swallow at least for me. Just felt like the 2E designers loved humans and wanted to force a way to players to take them. Now if they had included some fluff or backstory as to why I would not mind so much.

    A houserule that I borrowed from someone else to make humans on par with everyone else when level limits are removed:

    humans get 2 bonus proficiencies. (can be used on weapon or non-weapon)and +1 to a attribute of choice.

    Half-eleves remain unchanged except that they get 1 bonus proficiency. (can be used as weapon or non-weapon).

    Humans get the two bonus proficincies for being so versatile as a race and the half-elf benefits a little from it because of being a mix of elven and human blood.

    Feel free to take and use my houserule.


    Bilbo Bang-Bang wrote:
    2nd ed. is still my favorite also. It had a lot of fun aspects to it and was very make it fun and don't become rules lawyers written right into it. Many people dislike the fact the DM was encouraged to discourage min/maxing. So that two hander specialist often got screwed if they didn't plan to be fighting in a small area. Imagine that! Why can't I swing a 6 foot sword in a 3 ft doorway, lol?

    If my GM declared I couldn't use a greatsword in a narrow doorway, I'd suggest they get some idea of how greatswords were used before deciding what I could/could not do with one.

    Shadow Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Nicos wrote:
    Stefan Hill wrote:

    Define weak? Every 2e fighter I played was rubbish at opening locks or climbing walls compared to thieves. The '3e/WoW' Rogue is not the concept that the original Thief was.

    low hps (d6), low attack, low (hihg?) AC, and sneak attack was really really dificult to land. and even if you could delivere it, it does a weak damage. I mean, if the Op or someone in the party of the Op try to build a thief flanking buddy they would be dissapointed.

    they do their sneaky job really good though.

    Yes, they are weak in combat compared to a combat-focused character. I'm not sure why that is surprising. Fighters also make poor mages. Mages make poor clerics. And clerics make poor thieves. What's your point?


    thejeff wrote:
    memorax wrote:
    Another thing I would point out to players. Espcially players who avoided playing any D&D before 3E is that monster encounters imo in 2e are more lethal. With certain monsters being immune to any damage unless its a magic weapon. To losing permanent levels to energy drain better to tell them upfront than have them go through a rude awakening so to speak.
    OTOH, if you have magic weapons there's none of this DR good/evil/silver/plastic/whatever nonsense.

    In 3.0, a +1 weapon also negated damage reduction that required silver, mithral, or some other special material to overcome. I hated that 3.5 changed that (although I've been ridiculed on these boards for expressing that opinion).

    And yes, I agree that prohibiting a demi-human to advance beyond nth level is no way to balance the game. What if your campaign never progresses beyond nth level? What if your nth level demi-human character dies, and your replacement character is an nth level human? More generally, if you want to replace one character with another, how do you know what level would make him roughly as powerful as the replaced one? That kind of issue is what got me hooked on 3.X, and made me drop 2E.

    But one good thing about 2E, compared to 3.X, was that so many rules were easy to ignore. That's one reason 2E was simpler, despite its quirks.


    Aaron Bitman wrote:
    In 3.0, a +1 weapon also negated damage reduction that required silver, mithral, or some other special material to overcome. I hated that 3.5 changed that (although I've been ridiculed on these boards for expressing that opinion).

    Yeah, I never liked the idea that you had to carry around

    Aaron Bitman wrote:
    And yes, I agree that prohibiting a demi-human to advance beyond nth level is no way to balance the game. What if the game never progresses beyond nth level? What if your nth level demi-human character dies, and your replacement character is an nth level human? More generally, if you want to replace one character with another, how do you know what level would make him roughly as powerful as the replaced one? That kind of issue is what got me hooked on 3.X, and made me drop 2E.

    I think the expectation, at least in 1E, was that you'd start over again at 1st level. You had to earn those levels. Which went pretty fast, since exp was exponential.

    We never really did that. Replacement characters came in at (or at some percentage of) the experience of the old character. Then you figure what level your new character is based on that. Not really any harder than saying X level.

    Star Voter 2013

    Kthulhu wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    Stefan Hill wrote:

    Define weak? Every 2e fighter I played was rubbish at opening locks or climbing walls compared to thieves. The '3e/WoW' Rogue is not the concept that the original Thief was.

    low hps (d6), low attack, low (hihg?) AC, and sneak attack was really really dificult to land. and even if you could delivere it, it does a weak damage. I mean, if the Op or someone in the party of the Op try to build a thief flanking buddy they would be dissapointed.

    they do their sneaky job really good though.

    Yes, they are weak in combat compared to a combat-focused character. I'm not sure why that is surprising. Fighters also make poor mages. Mages make poor clerics. And clerics make poor thieves. What's your point?

    IMHO 2e thief were weaker in combat compared to the 3.x rogues, that is fine for people that started playing 2e.

    From someone that started playing 3.x that can be really frustrating.


    Nicos wrote:
    Kthulhu wrote:
    Yes, they are weak in combat compared to a combat-focused character. I'm not sure why that is surprising. Fighters also make poor mages. Mages make poor clerics. And clerics make poor thieves. What's your point?

    IMHO 2e thief were weaker in combat compared to the 3.x rogues, that is fine for people that started playing 2e.

    From someone that started playing 3.x that can be really frustrating.

    Somehow it never seemed important in 2E the way it does in 3.x. I'm not really sure why. Partly it may be because only the thief could do the things a thief could do. Other classes couldn't just take the skills and be as good or close to it.

    Partly it may just have been less expectation of balance.

    Star Voter 2013

    thejeff wrote:
    Nicos wrote:
    Kthulhu wrote:
    Yes, they are weak in combat compared to a combat-focused character. I'm not sure why that is surprising. Fighters also make poor mages. Mages make poor clerics. And clerics make poor thieves. What's your point?

    IMHO 2e thief were weaker in combat compared to the 3.x rogues, that is fine for people that started playing 2e.

    From someone that started playing 3.x that can be really frustrating.

    Somehow it never seemed important in 2E the way it does in 3.x. I'm not really sure why. Partly it may be because only the thief could do the things a thief could do. Other classes couldn't just take the skills and be as good or close to it.

    Partly it may just have been less expectation of balance.

    That is true, thief were my favorite class even Knowing that I will not be good at combat.

    But I think the "modern style" player would be uncomfortable.


    But that's the question. Is it just the "modern style" player? Or is there a fundamental difference in the way the game is played?


    All this talk of Demi-Humans and Level Limits reminds me that the most effective way I ever came up with to get my players to play Humans (let's not forget, the most populous and adaptable race in any game world per the rules) was to do the following:

    * Keep Level Limits for all Demi-Humans
    * Remove no-XP-penalty Multiclassing from Demi-Humans, and give it to Humans.
    * Remove Dual-Classing from Humans, and give it to Demi-Humans.

    This lead to lots of Human characters that would, over time, end up emulating some typical Fantasy Literature heroes (street urchins who become swordsmen who pick up some magic here and there and later become Kings... sound familiar?), with Demi-Humans who - over the course of their extremely long lives - might learn to master one or two careers, but would never match the spirits and inner flames of the Humans when it came to "doing everything at once."

    This actually worked remarkably well and made my players spend a lot of time planning and plotting out their character's advancement through their careers. They liked it more than any other change I made to the rules (more proficiencies, better combat maneuvers, etc etc), come to think of it.

    1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / Other RPGs / How complex is DnD 2e? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.

    ©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.