Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Do you want BG3 to use the new 5th edition rules?

12346

Comments

  • GemHoundGemHound Member Posts: 801
    edited November 2013
    @Schneidend
    Hmm, how about Dungeons and Dragons Online? That is an MMO.

  • LordRumfishLordRumfish Member Posts: 936
    GemHound said:

    @Schneidend
    Hmm, how about Dungeons and Dragons Online? That is an MMO.

    Slight tangent, but interestingly enough the mechanics of D&D Online got me to try a class combination I'd never tried before: rogue/cleric. I wanted everything you see, and I wanted to be able to do it solo. I could heal myself, deal with traps and locks, summon little meatshields, I had no weak saves, evasion, and my AC was through the roof (I wasn't especially stealthy... even a rogue runs out of skill points). Eventually I got bored with it because... well, it's an MMO and I was playing solo. It did open my eyes to a very versatile multiclass combination though.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    GemHound said:

    @Schneidend @the_spyder
    Just my two sense about what you two are talking about.
    I hate MMOs that are RPGs. They focus only on the multiplayer, and making a quick buck, NPCs are atrocious, and there is no storyline whatsoever. Any reject can go out and make an MMO that is supposedly supposed to be an RPG.
    Games like Baldur's Gate on the other hand, take work and actual thought, just like a tabletop game only in more detail unless your DM is just that awesome.

    I wouldn't necessarily be insulting about it. it takes effort to make MMOs or any online game. But I do agree that the focus and intent of the MMO market is very different from the RPG market and have yet to see an MMO that was in any way my definition of an RPG. Basically I feel that MMOs are facebook but with better graphics. They are social media games with little to no actual role playing involved.

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    @the_spyder

    Let me correct something. You don't pick a single power that you're stuck with for any given level until you level up again. You pick a power and it gets added to your total repertoire of powers. At first level, you choose two at-will powers, an encounter power, and a daily power, then pick a utility power (these can be at-wills, encounters, or dailies) at level 2. Subsequent levels give you MORE encounter, utility, and daily powers. You don't trade in old powers for new ones until post-level 9, at which point you'll have three encounters and three dailies total. You then get a fourth encounter power from your Paragon Path you select at level 11, along with some non-power abilities, and your Paragon Path provides an extra utility at 12 and an extra daily at 20. You then get an Epic Destiny at level 21 that has a progression of a handful of non-power abilities and a utility power of its own. 13th level Encounter powers require you to trade-up, but usually there's a more kickass version of your earlier level powers if you have a good setup, or you could just not take a 13th-level power at all. The variety of spells you're talking about still exists, but now everybody has tricks up their sleeves that function a bit like spells.

    Wizards (and Swordmages who take a particular feat) get a spellbook, and can choose an extra encounter/utility/daily at each level, but have to decide which they're using at the end of an extended rest, very similarly to a 3E or below Wizard.

    I'm not really sure what you mean by bringing up Bigby and Melf. You don't get to make custom spells in 2E or 3E, either. There's no Spyder's Furious Blast or Schneidend's Ethereal Mugging scroll to be made in any edition, as far as I'm aware. You'll have to elaborate on that point.

    I'm also a little confused by the last paragraph. My analogy was to point out that all editions of D&D were about rolling dice with friends and roleplaying characters around a table, and that MMOs DO NOT share this quality, thus making 4E nothing like an MMO. I've never suggested that a BG sequel should have more MMO-like aspects. I do like MMOs, but a big part of the reason I am NOT going to be playing Neverwinter much is because it was originally going to be more like a 4E Neverwinter Nights, complete with toolset, but over the years turned into an MMO. I was not happy about this at all, because I wanted a true 4E CRPG. I have also stated time and again that the Power system, and combat in general, is nothing like an MMO.


  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    GemHound said:

    @Schneidend
    Hmm, how about Dungeons and Dragons Online? That is an MMO.

    I haven't played DnD Online, myself. Is it much like the 3rd Edition rules on which it is based?

  • GemHoundGemHound Member Posts: 801
    edited November 2013

    GemHound said:

    @Schneidend
    Hmm, how about Dungeons and Dragons Online? That is an MMO.

    I haven't played DnD Online, myself. Is it much like the 3rd Edition rules on which it is based?
    Hmmm... Looking it up now...
    Edit: It appears to be a D&D version.

  • LordRumfishLordRumfish Member Posts: 936


    Wizards (and Swordmages who take a particular feat) get a spellbook, and can choose an extra encounter/utility/daily at each level, but have to decide which they're using at the end of an extended rest, very similarly to a 3E or below Wizard.

    I'm not really sure what you mean by bringing up Bigby and Melf. You don't get to make custom spells in 2E or 3E, either. There's no Spyder's Furious Blast or Schneidend's Ethereal Mugging scroll to be made in any edition, as far as I'm aware. You'll have to elaborate on that point.

    I'm going to have to disagree with you here, @Schneidend . 4th edition has many excellent qualities for the type of game it is, but it does not capture the feel of 3rd edition spells. The spellbook feels like a clunky holdover that is a pale shadow of the minute utility wizards had before. This is coming from someone who *likes* 4th edition, just not in the same way as previous editions.

    Furthermore, spell research is a major component of tabletop pen and paper games. There are rules in the DMG for allowing spell research, how much it should cost, a rough estimate of potential damage by spell level, how much time it takes to accomplish, etc. I am not 100% sure but I think some mages like Tenser began life as plain D&D characters who made their way into the canon. You could *absolutely* have Spyder's Furious Blast or Schneidend's Ethereal Mugging, as long as you pick an appropriate school, spell level, level of power, and have the money and research time to accomplish it. I have personally played a mage who specialized with the spell Grease (it's more powerful in pen and paper due to versatility), and I began researching a line of spells based on it. The 2nd level version had a slightly larger area and did a small amount of acid damage each round.

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018

    @the_spyder
    Let me correct something. You don't pick a single power that you're stuck with for any given level until you level up again. You pick a power and it gets added to your total repertoire of powers. At first level, you choose two at-will powers, an encounter power, and a daily power, then pick a utility power (these can be at-wills, encounters, or dailies) at level 2. Subsequent levels give you MORE encounter, utility, and daily powers. You don't trade in old powers for new ones until post-level 9, at which point you'll have three encounters and three dailies total. You then get a fourth encounter power from your Paragon Path you select at level 11, along with some non-power abilities, and your Paragon Path provides an extra utility at 12 and an extra daily at 20. You then get an Epic Destiny at level 21 that has a progression of a handful of non-power abilities and a utility power of its own. 13th level Encounter powers require you to trade-up, but usually there's a more kickass version of your earlier level powers if you have a good setup, or you could just not take a 13th-level power at all. The variety of spells you're talking about still exists, but now everybody has tricks up their sleeves that function a bit like spells.

    I don't see much difference from that and what I described, wherein you pick a power (or powers) upon level up and can't really change them. This might work, but it is much more (to my mind) like Mutants. You have the ability to teleport. You can't suddenly stop being able to teleport and learn optic blast. you are nightcrawler. That is not to say that make you less capable to survive. it does however mean that you aren't "Learning" spells and changing your strategy adventure to adventure.


    I'm not really sure what you mean by bringing up Bigby and Melf. You don't get to make custom spells in 2E or 3E, either. There's no Spyder's Furious Blast or Schneidend's Ethereal Mugging scroll to be made in any edition, as far as I'm aware. You'll have to elaborate on that point.

    Actually, in Advanced you absolutely can research and create new spells. The DMG has a price list and delineates an entire process surrounding that. Not sure if 2E has that and don't care if 3E has it. Basically when Bigby's and Melf's names dropped from the spell description, I lost interest. But yeah. That was the point behind Tensers and Bigbys, to entice players to create their own spells. In my game, back in the day, I did have a handful of spells named after my character (boy were they expensive) and they hung around even after that character died.

    But it doesn't change the basic premise, that of adventuring FOR THE PURPOSES of finding new and arcane spells (for a wizard). There is nothing you can find in a dungeon that any 'Wizard' in 4E can't learn merely by picking it at level up. And it also doesn't change the fact that a catelogue of hundreds (or potentially thousands of spells) gets reduced to a few dozen because no one would pick a spell (read power) that they can only use once in a blue moon.


    I'm also a little confused by the last paragraph. My analogy was to point out that all editions of D&D were about rolling dice with friends and roleplaying characters around a table, and that MMOs DO NOT share this quality, thus making 4E nothing like an MMO. I've never suggested that a BG sequel should have more MMO-like aspects. I do like MMOs, but a big part of the reason I am NOT going to be playing Neverwinter much is because it was originally going to be more like a 4E Neverwinter Nights, complete with toolset, but over the years turned into an MMO. I was not happy about this at all, because I wanted a true 4E CRPG. I have also stated time and again that the Power system, and combat in general, is nothing like an MMO.

    You were using your analogy to debunk the other poster's analogy which WAS about the mechanics of Powers based abilities versus the Baldur's gate way of spells and abilities. It was inappropriate because it had nothing what so ever to do with what that poster was saying. Claiming that 4E isn't an MMO because you sit around a table and make silly voices has nothing what so ever to do with the 4E mechanics that are more similar to MMO mechanics than to 2E mechanics. Even "If" the mechanics of 4E are not similar to MMOs, they are different from 2E. And to this independent observer, from what you have said, they sound a LOT closer to MMO style gaming than 2E.

    If you want any MMO to be an RPG, then you are destined to be disappointed my friend. They are made by different types of people and with different aims in mind. Best to stick with individual instances of Neverwinter Nights 2 with a DM and a group of buddies. MMOs will never (in my opinion) be RPGs. that is why the RPG was removed from the original MMORPG.


    Brude
  • bdragonbdragon Member Posts: 4
    See, I never really cared for 2e. I love this game, but its really despite this system, not because of it. I like the flexibility of 3.5- though yes, it was very easy to break the system,- and would want a system with similar flexibility. I'm as of yet unimpressed by 5th/NEXT, but we'll see.
    4e on the other hand is meant for an SRPG. I'm rather surprised someone hasn't done that already.

  • GemHoundGemHound Member Posts: 801
    @Schneidend
    Hmmm, it seems like it is either 3rd or 4th edition, more likely 4th edition, but I will know forsure in an hour and a half.

  • chbrookschbrooks Member Posts: 86
    While 5th edition is still in the playtesting phase, what they've released so far indicates to me that it would be more or less compatible with the style of play used in the Infinity Engine games. This edition so far looks to be a simplification of the game and goes back to a more bare bones style of rules than we had in 3rd and 4th edition.

    As to those saying that WotC would never allow another game to be made using older rules, I wouldn't be so sure. This is a different company than it was in the early 2000s (almost literally - practically everybody who worked there then is gone now), and they've made a move to make the D&D brand more friendly toward players of older editions. For example, the Murder in Baldur's Gate module had rules posted online that allowed you to convert the adventure to a 3rd or 4th edition game. WotC has also rereleased the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition books as well as some classic 1st edition adventures like the Slavers series.

    This past edition saw D&D lose its spot as the top-selling RPG in the industry, with Pathfinder claiming that place. WotC is now working very hard to recapture the large audience that stopped buying their products when 4th edition was released.

  • LordRumfishLordRumfish Member Posts: 936
    edited November 2013
    chbrooks said:

    While 5th edition is still in the playtesting phase, what they've released so far indicates to me that it would be more or less compatible with the style of play used in the Infinity Engine games. This edition so far looks to be a simplification of the game and goes back to a more bare bones style of rules than we had in 3rd and 4th edition.

    As to those saying that WotC would never allow another game to be made using older rules, I wouldn't be so sure. This is a different company than it was in the early 2000s (almost literally - practically everybody who worked there then is gone now), and they've made a move to make the D&D brand more friendly toward players of older editions. For example, the Murder in Baldur's Gate module had rules posted online that allowed you to convert the adventure to a 3rd or 4th edition game. WotC has also rereleased the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition books as well as some classic 1st edition adventures like the Slavers series.

    This past edition saw D&D lose its spot as the top-selling RPG in the industry, with Pathfinder claiming that place. WotC is now working very hard to recapture the large audience that stopped buying their products when 4th edition was released.

    If that's true... and I'm not saying I buy it... but if that's true, there might be hope after all.

    Maybe we'll see the Book of Chaos and the Book of Law.

    Perhaps there will be a *cheap* definitive printing of the "2.5" edition rules that came in the early to mid 90's.

    Just maybe there could be another Faerun game set in 2.5 edition rules.

    EDIT: Before the gods-for-freaking Spellplague! UGH, terrible writing, I could do better.

  • CatoblepasCatoblepas Member Posts: 96
    I would love a game in anything but 4.0/5.0 personally. Biggest problem I have is that it would have to be pre-spellplague for me to have any interest in another D&D game whatsoever. 4th ed FR is just awful, and while wotc seems to have finally realized it, their solution is less than ideal IMO. They should just do a mulligan and pretend everything in 4.0 FR never happened, and write a new timeline for that period-that's what I do when I DM D&D.

    If they were to make another Forgotten Realms game set pre-spellplague and using one of the pre-4th edition rulesesets, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. But a game with 4th or 5th edition ruleset or setting? That's a lot of lost trust to make up for.

  • GemHoundGemHound Member Posts: 801
    One thing I do not understand with the whole Spellplague. Mystra has died MULTIPLE times, yet there was no spell plague before 4th edition.

    Wandering_Minstrel
  • LordRumfishLordRumfish Member Posts: 936
    GemHound said:

    One thing I do not understand with the whole Spellplague. Mystra has died MULTIPLE times, yet there was no spell plague before 4th edition.

    It is quite obviously a means to an end. (Warning: I am speaking my opinion.) It seems clear to me that the writers had to come up with something to match what the rest of the department was striving for. They wanted 4th edition more streamlined and simplified, and Faerun is a very complex setting. What to do? I know, get rid of most of the gods and rearrange everything to make it fit with what we're doing for 4th edition!

    I don't hate the *ruleset* of 4th edition, although it is a different kind of game than what we usually play in my roleplaying groups. The setting, however, is atrocious and I liken it to shoving a square peg in a round hole.

    Wandering_Minstrel
  • CatoblepasCatoblepas Member Posts: 96
    GemHound said:

    One thing I do not understand with the whole Spellplague. Mystra has died MULTIPLE times, yet there was no spell plague before 4th edition.

    Most of what happened to Faerun in 4th edition (and the leadup to it) made little to no sense. I think they thought of stuff they wanted/didn't want in the setting first, and tried to explain it later, rather than looking to see if it would actually have made sense first, or what the repercussions would be.

    LordRumfishWandering_Minstrel
  • NWN_babaYagaNWN_babaYaga Member Posts: 732
    edited November 2013
    i dont think that rules only make a BG3 a BG3 but it should stay far away from the general mindset of real uniqueness and character diversity is to complicated, or not worth the time investment or just younger people now adays are to stupid to understand more than the diablo or dragon age "ruleset"... ehk.
    I realy liked the TOEE mechanics which were perfect (not bugfree) and of course the BG2 and NWN implementation of AD&D rules too. I think NWN must have been a hell of a work implementing so many things into a PC game and except for not having the traditional companions it was and still is a game to look for as a possible guideline for many things;)

    It was these diversity that kept me playing the games more then twice. The experience is just very different and you have a game that is in the end not just "bought and done"... ;)

  • CatoblepasCatoblepas Member Posts: 96
    That's a good example to bring up. TOEE had very robust mechanics in many ways. It also had lots of weapons and stuff that was omitted from a lot of other D&D rpgs, like the spiked chain, ranseur, and scythe. Future D&D games could learn a lot from where it excelled (as well as its failings)

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    edited November 2013




    I don't see much difference from that and what I described, wherein you pick a power (or powers) upon level up and can't really change them. This might work, but it is much more (to my mind) like Mutants. You have the ability to teleport. You can't suddenly stop being able to teleport and learn optic blast. you are nightcrawler. That is not to say that make you less capable to survive. it does however mean that you aren't "Learning" spells and changing your strategy adventure to adventure.

    The difference being that, as I said, you get more than one? It's less like you're nightcrawler and more like you're Nightcrawler, Cyclops, Storm, and Jean Grey all in one, with the option to add Jubilee, Magneto, and Charles Xavier, and more as you progress.

    As I also mentioned, Wizards DO get to switch out their Powers via their spellbook. You can also retrain one feat or power when you level up, replacing it for one of equal or lesser level. There are also feats you can take that allow you to swap encounter powers or daily powers if versatility is what you crave.


    Actually, in Advanced you absolutely can research and create new spells. The DMG has a price list and delineates an entire process surrounding that. Not sure if 2E has that and don't care if 3E has it. Basically when Bigby's and Melf's names dropped from the spell description, I lost interest. But yeah. That was the point behind Tensers and Bigbys, to entice players to create their own spells. In my game, back in the day, I did have a handful of spells named after my character (boy were they expensive) and they hung around even after that character died.

    But it doesn't change the basic premise, that of adventuring FOR THE PURPOSES of finding new and arcane spells (for a wizard). There is nothing you can find in a dungeon that any 'Wizard' in 4E can't learn merely by picking it at level up. And it also doesn't change the fact that a catelogue of hundreds (or potentially thousands of spells) gets reduced to a few dozen because no one would pick a spell (read power) that they can only use once in a blue moon.

    What do you mean "once in a blue moon"?

    Anyway, the spell creation rules sound really cool. I personally don't prohibit my players from creating powers, though I usually let them tell me what they want and then do the mechanical stuff myself. For instance, in my current 4E game elementals are this big mystery to the world, and the party's elven Wizard gave herself a sort of leyline tattoo that gave her ice-related abilities like innate frost resistance and an extra power that lets her summon an ice elemental. that's not something the player could have picked upon level-up.

    There's also a human Knight in the party who was trained by one of the world's greatest swordsman, dubbed a Master of the Craft for being able to perform a maneuver that is pseudo-magical without knowing magic. Soon, the Knight will unlock the Manifestation Strike his master tried to teach him, an attack that is so uniquely representative of your essence that only people who truly know you can even see you while you do it. Both the ice elemental and the Knight's invisible super-duper-rhino-charge technique are daily powers.

    In a previous campaign I also had the party's halfling Rogue gain the Rage of a Thousand Breakfasts daily power based on an in-joke in the party. We took the "second breakfast" bit from LotR to its logical extreme.

    You were using your analogy to debunk the other poster's analogy which WAS about the mechanics of Powers based abilities versus the Baldur's gate way of spells and abilities. It was inappropriate because it had nothing what so ever to do with what that poster was saying. Claiming that 4E isn't an MMO because you sit around a table and make silly voices has nothing what so ever to do with the 4E mechanics that are more similar to MMO mechanics than to 2E mechanics. Even "If" the mechanics of 4E are not similar to MMOs, they are different from 2E. And to this independent observer, from what you have said, they sound a LOT closer to MMO style gaming than 2E.

    If you want any MMO to be an RPG, then you are destined to be disappointed my friend. They are made by different types of people and with different aims in mind. Best to stick with individual instances of Neverwinter Nights 2 with a DM and a group of buddies. MMOs will never (in my opinion) be RPGs. that is why the RPG was removed from the original MMORPG.


    Perhaps that analogy was in poor taste or just misplaced on my part. It's a bit tough to keep track of threads like this when I'm the only (or one of the few) defenders of 4E in a sea of skepticism and vitriol. I suppose the simplest thing to do is just to rescind it, because clearly it was borne and resulted in nothing but miscommunication.

    But, again, 4E is nothing like an MMO. It's D&D, except everybody gets cool abilities instead of just spellcasters. Fighters, Barbarians, and Rogues get to trip, daze, cause bleeding damage, and push enemies around without having to invest in expensive feat trees. Clerics finally get to use their standard actions for something other than being a healbot. And, when they do need to heal, they don't necessarily have to spend their entire turn doing so. That alone is very different from 99% of MMOs, where the healer heals and does nothing else. No damage, no crowd control, nada. I'm not sure how you're taking away that 4E is anything like an MMO. Everything I've talked about is nothing at all like an MMO. There are no talent trees requiring 5 points here 2 points here, and 3 points here; there are no daily quests, grinding, or 45-second versus 15-second versus 1.5-second cooldown abilities, etc.
    GemHound said:

    @Schneidend
    Hmmm, it seems like it is either 3rd or 4th edition, more likely 4th edition, but I will know forsure in an hour and a half.

    D&D Online is based heavily on 3E. I know that much. It uses 3E-style multi-classing, as far as I recall at least.

    LordRumfishBrude
  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @Schneidend - fair enough. You and I have discussed 4E in the past and I see your passion for the system. Not having played it, my only evaluation is based on what people post. For me, I reserve judgement other than to say that it is 'Different' than 2E. In that, I personally would prefer that 2E be used in any upcoming potential BG games, not because it is 'Better' but simply because it is consistent.

    LordRumfishCatoblepasGemHound
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    @the_spyder
    That is fine by me. I've never suggested people have to share my opinions. I've only attempted to refute erroneous arguments and protest venomous sentiments, and things get heated when I am met with really staunch resistance by people trying to convince me that a product I enjoy is somehow objectively flawed. It often happens in threads where Dragon Age 2 is mentioned, as well.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent," though. I'm also still curious about the "once in a blue moon" thing.

  • GemHoundGemHound Member Posts: 801
    @Schneidend
    He mean consistent as this:
    You have one game that works this way, and he wants the other game to work the same essentially since the second would be a sequel.
    Instead of this: Lets have a different rule system for every game...

  • the_spyderthe_spyder Member Posts: 5,018
    @Schneidend - Consistency means same rules sets. Nothing more.

    As for 'Once in a blue moon', that was meant to mean infrequently. I might have over exaggerated that point. either way, I feel enlightened at least a little bit about 4E.

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190


    As for 'Once in a blue moon', that was meant to mean infrequently. I might have over exaggerated that point. either way, I feel enlightened at least a little bit about 4E.

    Are you referring to when I said "The Wizard has his spells, the greatest of which are too taxing to use too often, and the Fighter has special tactics the only rarely crystallize in a combat situation"?

  • ajwzajwz Member Posts: 4,122
    I have not played D&D next so I couldn't comment on how good a system it is, but I am at least impressed by the genuine understanding about the dissatisfaction over the disasterous 4th ed shown by wotc, so I live in hope that lessons have been learned.

    jackjack
  • syllogsyllog Member Posts: 158
    edited December 2013
    Pathfinder!
    D20 v3.75
    They basically took everything, made it more balanced and gave it more character (lots more customization options).
    Lots of fun!
    http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/sorcerer.html#_sorcerer

    Failing that (for obvious reasons) v3.5 or maybe D&D Next (it's better than v4 at least...)

  • AmeraAmera Member Posts: 29
    The fact that Pathfinder exists is proof that 4e had a huge backlash. The fact it has been so successful (often outselling 4e books) proves 4e was a product disaster for Wotc. Whether it was good or bad is a separate question.

    Someone really got to the heart of the matter earlier: 4e was actually way ahead of its time, and that was its biggest problem. People always complain that "the sequel is just the same thing," but often times all they really want is the same thing with a few cleanups and changes. 4e was a far more radical change to the system than 2e-3e, and it probably would have fared much better if it had been called something besides D&D. Now wotc is trying to backpedal hard with 5e, and we'll see if it is too late with PF and others cutting into their (already small) market share.

    And as a random tangent, it is worth separating the lore from the edition. Even people who like 4e think the lore is a total disgrace for the most part, particularly the Realms.

    LordRumfish
  • mungomunkmungomunk Member Posts: 63
    hm...after many consideration I think I prefer 3.5 over any other edition.

  • Nic_MercyNic_Mercy Member Posts: 405
    My favorite edition was 2e with the players options: skills and powers book

    4th edition never felt like D&D to me. It felt like a video game ruleset written in a P&P format not the other way around. My first thought when reading the rules was "They want this to easily translate into video games" and after that D&D died for me. 3E was bad enough. Dont get me wrong I see a great deal of good about 3e but just the fact I'd have to replace every book I owned (and I owned alot) from 2e... and not every book or every bit of info from a book would get transferred to the new edition... completely alienated me as a player.

    New editions that are not backwards compatible with old editions are a cash grab IMO. That may not be true in actuality but its how it feels to me. 2e was a good system in my eyes. It became a great system with the player's options line of books because that was the precursor to many of the ideas put forth in 3e and 4e but they all still worked in 2e.

    Brude
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    @Nic_Mercy
    Some newer editions aren't backwards-compatible because they were fixing things that annoy the everloving crap out of non-diehard fans. Personally, after having feats in 3.5 and healing surges in 4, it's really difficult to go back. I still play Pathfinder, but having to ask for heals between fights is grating.

Sign In or Register to comment.