| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zagnabbit I think your being a little unfair to 3.5.
To be totally fair, you both took that to extremes - but I can understand why you did, in order to point out the original flaw in the post you were replying to.
It's also not completely a case of exaggeration - playstyle differences can also result in one system working better than the other for any given individual, just as they can also iron out the problems in both.
To illustrate - for me it's more like this:
2e:
PLAYER: Hey, can I do this?
Me: Sure *makes up some rule on the spot involving rolling against an ability with some arbitrary modifier attached*
3e/3.5/PF:
PLAYER: Hey, can I do this?
Me: Sure *makes up some rule on the spot involving rolling against a skill with some arbitrary modifier attached*
I don't slow down games to check for obscure rules if I can help it, no matter what game or what edition ;) I also believe in giving people a (even if it's very remote) chance to succeed at pretty much any physical task, even if there's a feat/skill/ability for it that they don't have.
System Mastery to a certain extent existed in every edition of D&D now an then
Oh, absolutely. Back then it was a lot easier to work that stuff out in your head in a couple of minutes while today there's far more reward available from investing the time in working things out with a spreadsheet, but it's certainly always been around. We've had it ever since the first player faced a choice and took the time to figure the overall difference between getting an extra +1 to hit versus an extra +1 to damage, or working out that if you perform action X before action Y it has far more effect than the opposite way around, or that choice A and choice B together have more synergy than any of the other paired options.
That's one of the reasons I prefer simpler rulesets to make players rely on their own "real world" tactical sense rather than on knowledge of the rules. I'd much rather a game made me think in terms of "attacking from there is good because I'll be on higher ground" than "attacking from there is good because it gives me +2 to hit", for example. I know attacking from higher ground is a good thing, and I don't need the rules to tell me that, just to reflect it after I've made my decision.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All the pre-d20 editions were better balanced than 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.While I agree with that, I'd have to add that the complexity and sheer range of options introduced in 3.0 is the main cause of that imbalance. When you're dealing with a fairly static set of rules for a handful of classes, it's bound to be easier to balance than something that creates near-limitless combinations of possibilities.
Yeah, I'm not at all convinced that 3e and its descendants are any more imbalanced than what came before. Balance, in the modern sense, began with 3e. Not that 3e and its descendants always achieved balance, but it set balance as a goal in a way that D&D had never done before.
For example, 'The paladin's superior class features are balanced out by its tight role playing restrictions and the extreme unlikelihood of rolling high enough stats to qualify for paladinhood' is a joke statement by current standards, but before WotC, it was a legitimate concept of 'balance.'
Did 3e and its descendants achieve the balance that its devs originally hoped? Almost certainly not. But is it less balanced than 2e and earlier editions? At most I'd say that they're all balanced and imbalanced in different ways.
|
This is bad GMing in any system. If a player wants to do something and you can't find the rule right away, make something up and tell the players that the ruling applies for this session only.
Well sometimes you can or can't depending on what needs to be ruled. It is made easier with clear and concise rules. Out if the two RPGs I found 3E easier to use and houserule than 2E.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing that pisses me off more than anything else in these threads is the posters who are so utterly dismissive of other people's opinions that they say that no Body could possibly actually prefer pre-d20 editions to d20 editions without it being the product of nostalgia / rose-colored glasses.
No need to name any names....their posts speak for themselves. Might as well have an "Arrogant Twit" label next to their subscription lists.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All the pre-d20 editions were better balanced than 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.While I agree with that, I'd have to add that the complexity and sheer range of options introduced in 3.0 is the main cause of that imbalance. When you're dealing with a fairly static set of rules for a handful of classes, it's bound to be easier to balance than something that creates near-limitless combinations of possibilities.Yeah, I'm not at all convinced that 3e and its descendants are any more imbalanced than what came before. Balance, in the modern sense, began with 3e. Not that 3e and its descendants always achieved balance, but it set balance as a goal in a way that D&D had never done before.
For example, 'The paladin's superior class features are balanced out by its tight role playing restrictions and the extreme unlikelihood of rolling high enough stats to qualify for paladinhood' is a joke statement by current standards, but before WotC, it was a legitimate concept of 'balance.'
Did 3e and its descendants achieve the balance that its devs originally hoped? Almost certainly not. But is it less balanced than 2e and earlier editions? At most I'd say that they're all balanced and imbalanced in different ways.
Which makes it all the more sad that the edition where balance was a goal misses the mark so much more than a system where balance wasn't a goal.
|
|
Faith & Avatar, Demi-huamn dieites, Powers and Pantheons also brought Clerics into their own in 2E. It's not to say one could not play a Cleric far from out. Yet unlike the other classes really were not that well definied. The Complete priest to me was a disappointment as a source book. I found it lacking compared to others in the series. Once Faith and Avatar was released I saw a lot more Clerics at my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which makes it all the more sad that the edition where balance was a goal misses the mark so much more than a system where balance wasn't a goal.All the pre-d20 editions were better balanced than 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.While I agree with that, I'd have to add that the complexity and sheer range of options introduced in 3.0 is the main cause of that imbalance. When you're dealing with a fairly static set of rules for a handful of classes, it's bound to be easier to balance than something that creates near-limitless combinations of possibilities.Yeah, I'm not at all convinced that 3e and its descendants are any more imbalanced than what came before. Balance, in the modern sense, began with 3e. Not that 3e and its descendants always achieved balance, but it set balance as a goal in a way that D&D had never done before.
For example, 'The paladin's superior class features are balanced out by its tight role playing restrictions and the extreme unlikelihood of rolling high enough stats to qualify for paladinhood' is a joke statement by current standards, but before WotC, it was a legitimate concept of 'balance.'
Did 3e and its descendants achieve the balance that its devs originally hoped? Almost certainly not. But is it less balanced than 2e and earlier editions? At most I'd say that they're all balanced and imbalanced in different ways.
Repeat your mantra as often as you like, but it's still debatable. By 2008, I had developed a lengthy list of house rules for 3.x -- and when I say 'lengthy,' I mean I actually called it my tome of house rules! -- but if I were to DM 2e again...well, I wouldn't, because I'd end up rewriting the game from the ground up. 3.x frequently misses the balance target, but 2e isn't even trying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The hatred spewed by some posters in this thread is saddening. It basically boils down to "stop liking things I don't like!" It's the same vitriol people spew about 4th edition.
Honestly, looking through my 2nd edition books, I don't think that I could ever really go back to it. It was fun at the time, and have good memories about it. I honestly feel, to me, that the d20 versions are better than the AD&D versions. I am not saying that if you feel differently than that, that you are stupid and should be slapped for preferring the AD&D versions of the game over the d20 versions.
There are things I enjoyed more about 2nd edition than the later editions, but overall I enjoy more about the newer editions than the earlier editions. What I enjoyed most about the earlier editions was what seemed to be people playing characters, not numbers. Personaly experience, but those around me went for what seemed fun and interesting, not what gave them the higher numbers. That's what I found the most fun back in the AD&D editions. I don't see much of that anymore, as those around me are all about the higher numbers.
That's one of the things I dislike about the d20 editions, the reliance and desire for bigger numbers.
Yes, just on the 2e recruitment thread I posted, I already have people asking, "Can I reroll my stats to get the race/class combo I want?" "Can we houserule this system to work more like that system?" Stuff like that. Doesn't happen in 3e anymore. The one question I see that remains the same between the games is, "Can I add in this extra sourcebook that you didn't specify?"
Another thing that's been interesting is how vital it is for the DM to be involved in the character creation process. For example, how do you choose the starting spellbook for a wizard? By RAW, you must ask the DM, because he might make you roll for them, he might let you choose, or he might choose for you.
Although in my experience the less the game was houseruled, the smoother and more cleanly the game went, having a houserule-free game was impossible, because there were some basic assumptions that a DM had to make from the beginning.
|
|
I want to apologize for my comment about rose colored glasses. Yet one or two posters who favor 2E did seem to get on peole cases for not liking 2E. To me it was never about "stop liking things I don't like" I did notice a few "how dare you not like what I like" as well. Cant have it both ways imo.
In any case lets just get back to discussing 2E.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Haha, yeah, I had to deal with rules arguments and people trying to weasel power for themselves in game CONSTANTLY with 1e, 2e, 3e, and PF. Never did play 4e, for much the reasons Jaçinto states. Got the core rules, read them, realized they were trying for the MMO feel, completely lost interest. More of a game, less of a world.
But, oh my goodness, the rules wars that were fought, the twisted interpretations that needed to be dispelled, in 1e and 2e! If they were any quieter, it was only because we didn't have forums like this to complain to. "I can use this from Dragon Magazine. It's official, and it gives me a +4 bonus to everything." Stuff like that. Believe me, none of this is new, at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep hearing of some interesting mechanics, but what I don't hear about is the problems with 2e that are the reason people aren't playing it anymore.
It can't be just because it's a "dead system". Many people still play 3.5.
What were the problems?
I played for years and years happily but switched over to 3e as a system after it came out.
I had a number of problems with 2e:
The extreme bell curve of the stat bonuses.
The importance of stats and stat bonuses. (nonweapon skill rolls were based on rolling under your stat on a d20, hp bonuses were significant, max spell levels, significant combat bonuses in a game with few bonuses)
Random stat generation and hp rolling.
Calculating THACO versus descending AC was an annoying speedbump in the middle of action.
Significant disparity in class combat powers.
Disparities between classes over different levels.
Class ability score prerequisites.
Limited demihuman levels.
The disparity in racial powers and the balance between them.
XP calculations were tiresome.
Class advancement xp charts being different was annoying, all modules were based on suggested levels and not xp.
Thief skills as their own rules subset and them starting out as seriously low success skills.
Mages starting out with significantly limited spells.
Vancian magic.
The trend of weapon specialization towards mechanically focusing in one preferred weapon effectively instead of being Conan who picks up an axe and dagger in one story then sword and shield in another and then using a bow in a third before effectively going with other weapons or combos later.
The importance of armor.
The power disparity in spells that did similar stuff.
Magic resistance.
Save or die poison and effects.
The importance of healing magic.
Those are the things that immediately jump to mind.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, anybody who says that 2E was fun because the combat was FASTER than 3E was probably not playing it RAW. Unless you are possibly comparing playing without mini's in 2E to playing with minis in d20 and counting the set up time.
But 2e by default didn't use miniatures, 3e+ by default does.
That aside.
I prefer 2e IF you play core only. The Complete books and the Options really didn't add anything that seemed to improve the fun of our sessions.
My only issue with core 2e, and this has been pointed out, is a high strength Fighter using Darts machine gun.
I would say the initiative system of 2e for me is the best yet implemented by a D&D game. Added uncertainty each round and made tactically round to round decisions mean something.
3e+ allowing every race to play every class and have unlimited progression completely destroyed the D&D feel for me. Gnome Paladin! Give me a break. In 1e and 2e very good reasons are given for limits and advice NOT to change them. Arguing those limits were wrong is like arguing Gygax got the average height of an Elf wrong...
D&D was NOT a generic fantasy game, it had its own flavor independent of any setting.
S.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Save or die poison and effects.
While simple bad luck could result in a death, raising people (well except Elves) was possible (-1 CON afterwards). Such effects did mean thinking was sometimes involved at the table rather than only during the character generation step.
Also, anybody who says that 2E was fun because the combat was FASTER than 3E was probably not playing it RAW. Unless you are possibly comparing playing without mini's in 2E to playing with minis in d20 and counting the set up time.But 2e by default didn't use miniatures, 3e+ by default does.
That aside.
I prefer 2e IF you play core only. The Complete books and the Options really didn't add anything that seemed to improve the fun of our sessions.
My only issue with core 2e, and this has been pointed out, is a high strength Fighter using Darts machine gun.
I would say the initiative system of 2e for me is the best yet implemented by a D&D game. Added uncertainty each round and made tactically round to round decisions mean something.
3e+ allowing every race to play every class and have unlimited progression completely destroyed the D&D feel for me. Gnome Paladin! Give me a break. In 1e and 2e very good reasons are given for limits and advice NOT to change them. Arguing those limits were wrong is like arguing Gygax got the average height of an Elf wrong...
D&D was NOT a generic fantasy game, it had its own flavor independent of any setting.
S.
Well, the kits from the complete books were an attempt at adding a specific flavor to whatever class you were going to play. Some were more miss than hit, and some were interesting.
I'll agree that the initiative system worked really well and 2ed didn't have all that absurd initiative stacking that goes on nowadays.
|
|
Well, the kits from the complete books were an attempt at adding a specific flavor to whatever class you were going to play. Some were more miss than hit, and some were interesting.
Have you seen the 'official' apology from the author of the Complete Elves book? Worth a look on TubeYou.
That was an apology LONG in the making!
Agree with what you say about kits and why we dropped them. A 1st Level 'Witch' could have a Rope of Entanglement...
Now having said that we found in Al-Qadim the kits (and modified classes) worked really well - or so we thought. But the Complete books, no so much.
Yeah, the Complete books is something I can take or leave. Right now, I'm using the Patrician kit from Complete Wizard in a PbP because its basic concept meshes well with establishing my place within the story. Again, more for flavor, but it can help add to the foundation of building stories.
Save or die poison and effects.
While simple bad luck could result in a death, raising people (well except Elves) was possible (-1 CON afterwards). Such effects did mean thinking was sometimes involved at the table rather than only during the character generation step.
Yep, simple bad luck could result in a death from one roll. Sometimes leading to the thought "well that sucked."
Poor Black Dougal.
I did not and do not consider binary one roll no effect or a dead character as a good game mechanic to throw at PCs or particularly stimulating to in game thinking.
Or the availability of raise dead, resurrection, and druidic and wizardly reincarnate a good reason to have arbitrary death so commonly available with poison needle traps, giant spiders, venomous snakes, and poison spells. Plus they need a cleric of at least 9th level to raise the dead. In 2e the games were often lower level than in the d20 era and it was not uncommon to have a multi-year campaign never reach near that level of play.
|
I had a number of problems with 2e:The extreme bell curve of the stat bonuses.
I like and miss this - too many pile on numbers in 3rd ed/PF, the fact that you did't get anything till 15 and stats don't go up as you leveled was a good thing. Focus on playing, less are CharOp and builds.
-The importance of stats and stat bonuses. (nonweapon skill rolls were based on rolling under your stat on a d20, hp bonuses were significant, max spell levels, significant combat bonuses in a game with few bonuses)
Not even close to 3rd ed based games. MAD and SAD are 3rd ed creations.
-Random stat generation and hp rolling.
Was fun but swingy, better than point buy generic builds of 3rd
-Calculating THACO versus descending AC was an annoying speedbump in the middle of action.
Vs calculating 10 different bonuses from varied abilities and powers, spells, potions (spells part II) that all stack up in a 9th level character fight in 3rd ed games? Lol
-Significant disparity in class combat powers.
Disparities between classes over different levels.
Managed by different xp progression, and I don't recall caster martial disparity arguments prior to 3rd ed - they never came up because the disparity didn't exist.
-Class ability score prerequisites.
Limited demihuman levels.
These were good things. Demi-humans had many gimmies, this was a way to balance them out without giving humans (default race) super human powers to compete.
-The disparity in racial powers and the balance between them.
These could have been balanced a little better, level limits being the hard balancing point and ultimate control (even if people didn't like it).
-XP calculations were tiresome.
Class advancement xp charts being different was annoying, all modules were based on suggested levels and not xp.
They were listed at a suggested range, 1-3rd, 5th to 7th, etc. Never ever had a problem with this unless all the PCs were at the minimum level to play and the players themselves were not very experienced.
-Thief skills as their own rules subset and them starting out as seriously low success skills.
The curve and progression could have been better, but it was very playable and in fact 1000% better than 3rd ed games where skills are now "drop a rank, buff number = profit". The current skills system spells out the death of the Rogue class and to some extent all the other classed that rely on skills instead of magic to interact with the game. Once they made it a numbers systems that could be gamed by buffs, it killed these classes and their usefulness dead. Horrid game design.
-Mages starting out with significantly limited spells.
Spammable 0-level spells = poorly thought out way to fix low level casting. Limited spells is a good thing, I miss it.
-Vancian magic.
Still there, still the core system.
-The trend of weapon specialization towards mechanically focusing in one preferred weapon effectively instead of being Conan who picks up an axe and dagger in one story then sword and shield in another and then using a bow in a third before effectively going with other weapons or combos later.
This is the problem with any system for the most part - even PF fighters with various weapon groups still lose out if they are not using their primary weapon, more so than debuffs in some cases.
-The importance of armor.
???
-The power disparity in spells that did similar stuff.
Nit picking here. This was a by-product of the 1-9 MU spell list vs. the 1-7 cleric spell list. I miss spells having slight differences. I miss a wand of Flame not just being a Fireball spell launcher - but an actual wand that did multiple things tied to Fire and Fire tricks.
-Magic resistance.
Much better than SR, any day of the week.
-Save or die poison and effects.
These were good and need to be back in the game. That being said the new format of hazards and poisons is a design improvement (freq check, etc).
-The importance of healing magic.
Aaaaand what changed?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely and utterly disagree about a lack of level for Demi-humans as being a good thing. The explanation given to me always felt like the 2E devs liked playing humans. So to screw over someone wanting to play a Demi-human level limits were imposed. 3E is far from perfect. Good bye and good riddance to leave limits. Nor will anyone convince me otherwise. Any 2E game I'm running while have no level limits. Avoiding any 2E games as a player where level limits are implemented.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Importance of casters using healing spells, I think Voadam means, because you couldn't just buy CLW wands and potions. You had to have a healer, because there was no easy way to get back HP. That was also bad because it pigeon holed your main healer, the cleric, into being a healer all the time. Not having tons of healing spells to pass out was like, a major sin.
Which, in my mind, led to a lot more caution and management of HP then you get in the current game. I call it a feature, not a bug.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely and utterly disagree about a lack of level for Demi-humans as being a good thing. The explanation given to me always felt like the 2E devs liked playing humans. So to screw over someone wanting to play a Demi-human level limits were imposed. 3E is far from perfect. Good bye and good riddance to leave limits. Nor will anyone convince me otherwise. Any 2E game I'm running while have no level limits. Avoiding any 2E games as a player where level limits are implemented.
Yeah, that was a bad feature. I get the intent, but it didn't really work. You get to play the more powerful character now, but then you'll be crippled later.
Fair enough I suppose, if you're playing the kind of old school game where the thrill is the challenge of keeping the weak character alive long enough to earn a powerful one, but pretty useless in other styles. We'd usually just make a guess how long the campaign would last and pick a race class combination that would work the whole way. If you're stopping at 8th level anyway, who cares if you're limited to 9.
My emphasis - 1e/2e wasn't a generic fantasy RPG it was D&D. Never intended for 'other styles'. Like saying my screwdriver is really bad because it won't bang in nails.
By level 9 or 10 you were 'Name' level. Also remember that the common population was running around with 6-8 hp and really awesome castle may have a unit of 1st level fighters. High level fighters were reserved for running taverns it would seem...
3e+ changed expectations not only rules. Adventurers were truly special in 1e/2e - now the local lute player (say an Expert level 8) could beat the snot out of a low level fighter.
With 3d6 for stats the average is 9-12, that means classes like Druid, Ranger, Paladin etc made up a VERY small proportion of PC's and NPC's a like.
Comparing 1e/2e and 3e+ is rather silly (IMHO), COMPLETELY different games in terms of both mechanics, play and feel.
S.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I enjoyed about 2nd edition was the players I played with, and their attitude towards the numbers. As in, they didn't care about the numbers. People around me were happy with a 15 or 16 for their highest stat. Now if you don't have a 20 or 18 in a stat, people say your character is crap. It was a sad day when my group broke apart and I had to go into the sea of unknown people. And ever since 2003 when they revised 3rd edition, I only come across people who care about the numbers first and foremost, and they might come up with a character. They may even write a 2 sentence backstory if I am lucky!
I love the Pathfinder system, but I miss that feeling of playing with other people's characters, not other people's numbers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I enjoyed about 2nd edition was the players I played with, and their attitude towards the numbers. As in, they didn't care about the numbers. People around me were happy with a 15 or 16 for their highest stat. Now if you don't have a 20 or 18 in a stat, people say your character is crap. It was a sad day when my group broke apart and I had to go into the sea of unknown people. And ever since 2003 when they revised 3rd edition, I only come across people who care about the numbers first and foremost, and they might come up with a character. They may even write a 2 sentence backstory if I am lucky!
I love the Pathfinder system, but I miss that feeling of playing with other people's characters, not other people's numbers.
I get what you mean. But I don't think the problem is people can't, just that you need to put a lot of time, into the so called System Mastery, to have a character that doesn't suck in 3e+.
I think in 1e/2e class was more important than stats (not that stats didn't help of course). So your character was rolled and ready to go in a short time and you knew it 'would work', under 3e+ if you aren't careful even with good stats your character could actually not be that helpful to the party.
S.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OTOH, don't rely too much on the backstory. I much prefer to keep the backstory short and simple and let the character's personality come out in play. The real story begins with the game..One thing I enjoyed about 2nd edition was the players I played with, and their attitude towards the numbers. As in, they didn't care about the numbers. People around me were happy with a 15 or 16 for their highest stat. Now if you don't have a 20 or 18 in a stat, people say your character is crap. It was a sad day when my group broke apart and I had to go into the sea of unknown people. And ever since 2003 when they revised 3rd edition, I only come across people who care about the numbers first and foremost, and they might come up with a character. They may even write a 2 sentence backstory if I am lucky!
I love the Pathfinder system, but I miss that feeling of playing with other people's characters, not other people's numbers.
I like a mix of both - a rich backstory to explain who this person is, why they behave the way they do, and why they have the skills they do, and then develop them through the campaign and watch them evolve through the decisions they make and the events that occur.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry I was playing it wrong all those years then.
Never said you were. All I was saying was that 1e AD&D by Gygax et al and the tidy up called 2e was NEVER a generic fantasy game. That was it, end of my observation, no personal comments on your play style past or future.
The authors of 1e and 2e have written in their respective rulebooks why they believe limits are in place, if you choose to disagree with their reasoning then that is up to you. But make NO mistake the limits are there because the authors decided they needed to be there to make the game (called D&D) as they saw it should be - they are not an error or bad game design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, if I had to make a choice between 3.x/PF and 2ed and never being able to play the other again, I would select 2ed. I never had the kind of rules interpretations, debates, character balancing issues, which spells to ban, which classes to ban, and so on when dealing with 2ed as compared to 3.x/PF.
|
|
they are not an error or bad game design.
I would not say a error. Yet very certainly bad game design imo.
When your pretty much forced to either take human to play a class to it's full potential yeah I think that's bad design.
High level campaigns at least in my experience with 2E and demi-humans usually went one of three ways:
-Play a demi-human and pray to the gaming goods that you found a kind enough DM to allow one to multiclass without penalty. It kind of gets bored getting locked into a certain level or playing the same racial class with no level penalty.
-Play with no level limits while giving humans something more than unlimited levels with classes. A +1 to two attributes . Or two starting weapon or nonweapons proficinces. Or one of each
-Play human simply to not have to worry about the poor game design and level limits in general.
I could understand if the fluff on racial level limits made sense. It was like a who's who of stereotypes imo. Elves are too flighty and suffer from ADD. Dwarves are too stubborn and anti-social and so on. Even Palladium does a better job with the fluff on class limatations. Dwarves in their world want nothing to do with magic as they almost destroyed not only themselves but also the world.
No I refuse to accept what the authors of 1E and 2E wrote on certain aspects of the game in the books. They are very much not the gospel truth or the one true way to play the game. Not to say I dislike 2E it's far from perfect. Neither were the people who worked on it imo.
-Play with no level limits while giving humans something more than unlimited levels with classes. A +1 to two attributes . Or two starting weapon or nonweapons proficiencies.
^^This demonstrates that by allowing unlimited advancement for demi-humans, you do not need to reinvent the wheel to add a couple of beneficial abilities. Bad game design? Ok, I'll grant that their reasoning could have been better, but at the end of the day, we all had a good time with the system.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Avoiding any 2E games as a player where level limits are implemented.
Do you know what the level limits were in 2nd edition?
Dwarves, Elves, and Half-elves all had level limits in the double-digits; it was only gnomes and halflings that had level limits as low as 8 and 9.
Did you know that the level limit for an elven Mage was 15th level? If that same elven Mage had an INT score of 18, and the optional rules for exceeding level limits was used, his max level would now be 18th level.
Seems kind of silly to me to miss out on the possibility of an awesome gaming experience just because the DM makes use of level limits...
I mean, was it really that common for your 2nd edition games to reach 15th level and beyond??
YMMV and all of that.
|
|
-Play with no level limitsEven Palladium does a better job with the fluff on class limitations. Dwarves in their world want nothing to do with magic as they almost destroyed not only themselves but also the world.
I refuse to accept what the authors of 1E and 2E wrote on certain aspects of the game in the books. They are very much not the gospel truth or the one true way to play the game.
(1) Bad World design - explain again why every world isn't ruled by 1,000 year old Elven Archmages and perhaps the odd Human Lich? This is clearly pointed out in the 2e DMG as a reason for the level limits.
(2) Gygax and pals wrote the game, if they thought Dwarfs should have wings they were well within their right to make it so. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1e/2e also don't have spell casting Dwarfs, so? Bad game design?
(3) Again, the racial thing is specifically discussed in the 2e DMG. Showing the game designers were actually concerned about keeping the limits in place during play. Yet many other things are specifically called optional. If it was bad design why after decades were they worried people would drop the limits?
1e multiple reprints and overlapping with 2e - 2e could have changed them, but just added Clerics in core for all races. The designers involved in 1e and 2e either had a valid reason for the limits in terms of making the game behave as they saw it should, even if you disagree, or they were really dense.
I'm arguing from a point of RAW here, of course no person will be arrested for modifying any RPG rules as they wish.
|
|
Avoiding any 2E games as a player where level limits are implemented.Do you know what the level limits were in 2nd edition?
Dwarves, Elves, and Half-elves all had level limits in the double-digits; it was only gnomes and halflings that had level limits as low as 8 and 9.
Did you know that the level limit for an elven Mage was 15th level? If that same elven Mage had an INT score of 18, and the optional rules for exceeding level limits was used, his max level would now be 18th level.
Seems kind of silly to me to miss out on the possibility of an awesome gaming experience just because the DM makes use of level limits...
YMMV and all of that.
Oh yeh. And this... :)
Cheers DE.
|
|
^^This demonstrates that by allowing unlimited advancement for demi-humans, you do not need to reinvent the wheel to add a couple of beneficial abilities. Bad game design? Ok, I'll grant that their reasoning could have been better, but at the end of the day, we all had a good time with the system.
I had fun with 2E. It was my gateway rpg to the hobby. It had it's flaws though. I feel the same way about certain things with 3E and 4E. I just REALLY hated and still hate level limits for demi-humans. I feel it adds nothing to the rpg. Just a way to shoehorn players into taking humans. Since the developers were either unable or unwilling to add something unique to human in 1E and 2E.
Do you know what the level limits were in 2nd edition?Dwarves, Elves, and Half-elves all had level limits in the double-digits; it was only gnomes and halflings that had level limits as low as 8 and 9.
Did you know that the level limit for an elven Mage was 15th level? If that same elven Mage had an INT score of 18, and the optional rules for exceeding level limits was used, his max level would now be 18th level.
Seems kind of silly to me to miss out on the possibility of an awesome gaming experience just because the DM makes use of level limits... I mean, was it really that common for your 2nd edition games to reach 15th level and beyond??
YMMV and all of that.
I knew about the level limits and see your point. Yet again I don't see what it adds to the overall 2E experience. The other problem being if the optional level limits were used. Which was not always the case. It also easier to run the game when everyone is a equal level.
|
|
(1) Bad World design - explain again why every world isn't ruled by 1,000 year old Elven Archmages and perhaps the odd Human Lich? This is clearly pointed out in the 2e DMG as a reason for the level limits.
I consider it a thinly disguised rationalization to make sure everyone plays human. It amounts to "but if demi-humans don't have level who will play human". How about letting me the player decide which race I want to play without screwing me over from the start.
(2) Gygax and pals wrote the game, if they thought Dwarfs should have wings they were well within their right to make it so. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1e/2e also don't have spell casting Dwarfs, so? Bad game design?
Which by no means makes then infallible. I respect Gygax and his pals. They were no perfect. Neither is some elements in 2E. Again like others who responded to me I see the point your trying to make. For the most part I disagree with it. Two things that always come up that I hear people dislike about 2E. Thaco which I have no problems with yet drove some in the hobby crazy. Second being level limits which the people I played with implemented at first then threw out the window ASAP.
I'm arguing from a point of RAW here, of course no person will be arrested for modifying any RPG rules as they wish.
No worries we both are passionate about the hobby. We may not always agree. Yet I respect a person for defending their rpg. Then again I have been called weird because I like the complete series of books.