@Jolanthus It all depends on what the party needs, If we need a fighter, I'll play a fighter with those stats. Barring that, my first impulse would be a Thief or a Cleric.
@Jolanthus LIke @LadyRhian said, it would depend on the party's needs. Playing a fighter with those stats would make for interesting role playing though. How do you explain the 20 Dex?
@Jolanthus Ah. That explains it. Male Drow are trained only as Fighters or Mages. Drizzt only became an Underdark Ranger, and a topside Ranger when he ran into Mooshie on the surface.
Khalid is a solid fighter with Str 15 Int 12 Wis 10 Dex 16 Con 17 Cha 9. No need to "super-size" his stats - his Con alone gives him awesome hitpoints and his Dex keeps him from getting hit too often. Those should really be the main (if not prime) attributes of a good fighter/tank. Granted, he'd make a good fighter/thief too but sometimes the simplest options are the best. You don't need superhuman traits to be any particular class (being that I think a strength of 9 is required for a fighter, which seems reasonable being an average strength) and I've played such a fighter with stats like these as a swashbuckler (which was also a fighter kit in 2e, not just a thief kit) and he excelled due to that dex/con combo.
I wouldn't have split 4E into two categories, since Essentials essentially (hah!) just added more stuff to normal 4E. In any case, 4E in general is my jam, though I do love Pathfinder and have some fond memories of 3.5.
Next doesn't look very attractive to me. Seems like Next offers nothing new. If you like 3.5, play 3.5.
Ideally, I'd love a 2nd edition, but with a few changes regarding AC, THACO and THACO progression. IE : - You get AC10, then get AC bonuses from armor & magical items. - You get bonuses to THACO instead of diminushing - Change the THACO progression to the THACO progression of 3rd edition (+1 for fighter, 2/3 for Clerics / Thieves, 1/2 for Wizards) - Enhance the class availability (IE.: Have Dwarves able to be Transmuters, Gnomes beeing able to be bards) while stil restraining availability.
That's pretty much it. I never really liked the feat system,. While it's indeed fun, it - basically changes D&D from "I play a character" to "I build a character". - Makes it a pain in the ass to play with people that are casual players (Whereas it's way easier to tell someone to roll a Thief, a Fighter or a Wizard/Cleric in 2nd edition without them having to spend 5 hours choosing feats and learning about them)
Have any of you ever played Hackmaster? And I don't mean that 'modern' travesty of HM Basic, but good old, crunchy 1st ed AD&D-derived Hackmaster. It's essentially 1st ed, with a detailed honor system, character quirks/flaws, and extensive non-combat skills. The flavor is such that it pits the GM vs. the players, so you have to be into that kind of system. This ain't pathfinder.
My exposure to AD&D before playing Hack this past year was BG / IWD etc, and since 2.5e is considered an updated/streamlined 1st ed, it's no surprise I enjoy Hackmaster. For those of you old enough to have played 1st ed, the PHB and GMG are very similar to old 1st ed, including even page #s governing rules for specific systems. They released 9 (9!) monster manuals, 4 class splats, and lots of modules. Now it's all out of print (they lost the rights mid 2000s, so most of this stuff is dirt cheap used on amazon), but the best part is that it's fairly trivial to take any 1st/2nd edition adventure, item, spell, etc and convert it directly to Hack's system, since they're almost the same. The game is definitely for masochists, but thankfully I've got a group of 5 + 1 GM who appreciate difficulty and dying (sometimes). I'm quite surprised to see that no one has mentioned it, but maybe the overlap between PnP players and CG players isn't very significant.
I too must be old school. I remember Basic, advanced and 2nd edition. Anything beyond that is BG/NWN to me. I stopped playing with my group way back when 2nd edition was just being introduced. Haven't played anything other than CRPGs since.
No doubt I'm old school. I basically "grew up" on 1E and basic D&D. For my first ten years gaming, my "formative years"! I guess will always be my best and fondest gaming memories. And my own game was always a modified 1E.
When 2E game out it just felt like a needed clean up. Sort of tidying house after a decade of modifications to the original game. I, and ALL my buddies who were still running games, adopted it quickly with enthusiasm. It even led to a sort of second golden age for my gaming group as we were all very excited about the freshening up of our game. Over the years everything I've done has sprung from those core books. My game is pretty heavily modified at this point, but I've always felt good about how organized and tidy I've been able to keep everything. And in spite of all my mods, the game I run today is still clearly a 2E derivative. I've played the later games, and even had a great time on many occasions and created some characters and personalities I've enjoyed; but 2E remains my reference point, my normal, and my favorite.
2e was really restrictive and house rules were a necessity. It was good for what it was (when it was still new). Today we have a lot more options. Pathfinder is good too, but I think that's classified as 3.5.
I mix up 1st and 2nd editions freely, but were I to limit myself to just one of the two, it would be the 1st. It has some of the best rule books and awesome art.
I like 3rd edition as well, especially the incredibly wide character development possibilities and easy capability of being just about anything I'd like. But on the other hand, I really dislike the whole Caster Edition thing, particularly so because I have always loved fighters and other martial types. Pathfinder fixes it a little, but then it also goes and shuts down a lot of the former bits, the stuff I really like. I still prefer the early editions the most.
That's pretty much it. I never really liked the feat system,. While it's indeed fun, it - basically changes D&D from "I play a character" to "I build a character". - Makes it a pain in the ass to play with people that are casual players (Whereas it's way easier to tell someone to roll a Thief, a Fighter or a Wizard/Cleric in 2nd edition without them having to spend 5 hours choosing feats and learning about them)
I prefer to "build a character" so that I can "play a character" uniquely my own. That's what character options like feats let me do. Otherwise, what differentiates two first-level Fighters who both like greatswords, mechanically? You can just tell new players to take things like Weapon Focus or saving throw boost feats like Great Fortitude and Iron Will.
Not really. They came out with a couple new books that had the Essentials tag that added some simple yet effective classes and builds new players could immediately pick up and play, but it wasn't a rules change/patch/update like 3.5 was for 3E.
-Its near total reliance on the battle map. The hobby should be about role-playing, not hex grids and skill challenges.
-Power Cards are highly reminiscent of abilities or powers that you would see in quickslots in a video game like WoW, where you pull out some pre-defined 'moves' instead of RPing your actions.
-The art and feel of the game in general is reminiscent of the style of popular video games.
In the words of Ander Wood, (His channel is here: https://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad/featured) "What my biggest problem is, is this is the worst game I've seen for a new player to start on, as I think it does the worst job of teaching one how to rp or what an rpg really is & at the same time it is the name the non-gaming world knows."
You can still run a quality game with it (need a good DM) but it teaches players to play the game like you would a video game.
*added link to Ander's youtube profile. He's one of the best DMs on the planet. He talks about D&D. Entertaining, interesting and he has great ideas
@_N8_: I'd like to add the almost complete removal of all utility spells and abilities, anything to do with stuff outside fights, such as craft skills, professions, and similar.
Now how am I supposed to know if my character is a master chef?
Part of what I always loved about 2E was how it gave us the tools for modifying the core concepts for our own settings and preferences. Specialty clerics were an inspiration and revelation to me. Conventional clerics disappeared in an instant from every game I was playing or running as every DM came up with clerics that were actually tailored to the religions and deities of their respective worlds. Things like spheres of influence to modify available spell lists, powers other than just "turn undead", and weapon/armor restrictions that made sense for each priesthood. Suddenly in each game, instead of one "cleric" character class there were ten to thirty unique priesthoods, each of which was a character class in its own right. Other things brought that same sense of flexibility, like weapon proficiencies where three different options were a part of the core books, along with the invitation to modify as needed.
Every game system I was playing at the time (and that includes D&D, AD&D, Traveler, Champions, Villains and Vigilantes, Gamma World, and others I've long since forgotten) were modified by individual GMs, some needed it badly (like 1st edition Gamma World, oi!). But 2E was the first game I saw that made house rules and modifications a suggested part of the game, and gave you the tools to do it.
Comments
Yeeeesh
Next doesn't look very attractive to me. Seems like Next offers nothing new. If you like 3.5, play 3.5.
IE :
- You get AC10, then get AC bonuses from armor & magical items.
- You get bonuses to THACO instead of diminushing
- Change the THACO progression to the THACO progression of 3rd edition (+1 for fighter, 2/3 for Clerics / Thieves, 1/2 for Wizards)
- Enhance the class availability (IE.: Have Dwarves able to be Transmuters, Gnomes beeing able to be bards) while stil restraining availability.
That's pretty much it. I never really liked the feat system,.
While it's indeed fun, it
- basically changes D&D from "I play a character" to "I build a character".
- Makes it a pain in the ass to play with people that are casual players (Whereas it's way easier to tell someone to roll a Thief, a Fighter or a Wizard/Cleric in 2nd edition without them having to spend 5 hours choosing feats and learning about them)
3.5 for the rules (the better so far, IMHO). 2nd Ed. for the fond memories.
BY the way, is there a 4.5 Ed.????
Have any of you ever played Hackmaster? And I don't mean that 'modern' travesty of HM Basic, but good old, crunchy 1st ed AD&D-derived Hackmaster. It's essentially 1st ed, with a detailed honor system, character quirks/flaws, and extensive non-combat skills. The flavor is such that it pits the GM vs. the players, so you have to be into that kind of system. This ain't pathfinder.
My exposure to AD&D before playing Hack this past year was BG / IWD etc, and since 2.5e is considered an updated/streamlined 1st ed, it's no surprise I enjoy Hackmaster. For those of you old enough to have played 1st ed, the PHB and GMG are very similar to old 1st ed, including even page #s governing rules for specific systems. They released 9 (9!) monster manuals, 4 class splats, and lots of modules. Now it's all out of print (they lost the rights mid 2000s, so most of this stuff is dirt cheap used on amazon), but the best part is that it's fairly trivial to take any 1st/2nd edition adventure, item, spell, etc and convert it directly to Hack's system, since they're almost the same. The game is definitely for masochists, but thankfully I've got a group of 5 + 1 GM who appreciate difficulty and dying (sometimes). I'm quite surprised to see that no one has mentioned it, but maybe the overlap between PnP players and CG players isn't very significant.
When 2E game out it just felt like a needed clean up. Sort of tidying house after a decade of modifications to the original game. I, and ALL my buddies who were still running games, adopted it quickly with enthusiasm. It even led to a sort of second golden age for my gaming group as we were all very excited about the freshening up of our game. Over the years everything I've done has sprung from those core books. My game is pretty heavily modified at this point, but I've always felt good about how organized and tidy I've been able to keep everything. And in spite of all my mods, the game I run today is still clearly a 2E derivative.
I've played the later games, and even had a great time on many occasions and created some characters and personalities I've enjoyed; but 2E remains my reference point, my normal, and my favorite.
(when it was still new). Today we have a lot more options. Pathfinder is good too, but I think that's classified as 3.5.
And 4th edition tries to be a video game...
I like 3rd edition as well, especially the incredibly wide character development possibilities and easy capability of being just about anything I'd like. But on the other hand, I really dislike the whole Caster Edition thing, particularly so because I have always loved fighters and other martial types. Pathfinder fixes it a little, but then it also goes and shuts down a lot of the former bits, the stuff I really like. I still prefer the early editions the most.
-Power Cards are highly reminiscent of abilities or powers that you would see in quickslots in a video game like WoW, where you pull out some pre-defined 'moves' instead of RPing your actions.
-The art and feel of the game in general is reminiscent of the style of popular video games.
In the words of Ander Wood, (His channel is here: https://www.youtube.com/user/woodwwad/featured)
"What my biggest problem is, is this is the worst game I've seen for a new player to start on, as I think it does the worst job of teaching one how to rp or what an rpg really is & at the same time it is the name the non-gaming world knows."
You can still run a quality game with it (need a good DM) but it teaches players to play the game like you would a video game.
*added link to Ander's youtube profile. He's one of the best DMs on the planet. He talks about D&D. Entertaining, interesting and he has great ideas
Now how am I supposed to know if my character is a master chef?
Part of what I always loved about 2E was how it gave us the tools for modifying the core concepts for our own settings and preferences.
Specialty clerics were an inspiration and revelation to me. Conventional clerics disappeared in an instant from every game I was playing or running as every DM came up with clerics that were actually tailored to the religions and deities of their respective worlds. Things like spheres of influence to modify available spell lists, powers other than just "turn undead", and weapon/armor restrictions that made sense for each priesthood. Suddenly in each game, instead of one "cleric" character class there were ten to thirty unique priesthoods, each of which was a character class in its own right.
Other things brought that same sense of flexibility, like weapon proficiencies where three different options were a part of the core books, along with the invitation to modify as needed.
Every game system I was playing at the time (and that includes D&D, AD&D, Traveler, Champions, Villains and Vigilantes, Gamma World, and others I've long since forgotten) were modified by individual GMs, some needed it badly (like 1st edition Gamma World, oi!). But 2E was the first game I saw that made house rules and modifications a suggested part of the game, and gave you the tools to do it.