The counterpoint to 3.5e eventually becoming bloated and over-powerful is that 2e was under-powerful and empty and boring. Many level-ups involved nothing for the player to do, and some level-ups resulted only in the character gaining 1 hp and that's it!
I'll take over-powered 3.5e over boring 2e any day. At least with an over-powered and bloated system you can fix that simply by not using a lot of stuff in your game. Problem solved. With 2e there's nothing you can do to make it better. You're just stuck with what you have, which is an empty and boring system.
I completely disagree with that, personally. 2e made every high level class feel extremely important in their own way, but especially the mages, druids, and clerics. Basically everything changes once you can cast the Wish spell. There is very little that you can not do at that stage.
Don't forget that the HLA's from TOB were also based on (for the most part) real high level abilities that were available in second edition, and not all of them were implemented. A high level cleric can call a crusade and raise an army very quickly.
one thing i noticed with a least DnD games for PCs is that in 2nd edition, based on its rule set and game balance it always felt that there was danger for your team, you would go into a dungeon and no matter how strong you would get, there was always something in there, that could wipe you if you weren't prepared
then skip over to 3rd edition games and eventually it gets to the point where you don't need wizards and clerics casting flashy spells because your team is so unstoppable there is no point ( this i find is way more prevalent in nwn1 and 2 ) the sense of danger fades, and now it just feels like a big of a slog to get through
but then one might argue that in IWD 2 they have HoF mode and hardcore difficulty, but all that does is arbitrarily increase enemy to hit/damage/saves/HP and makes its even more unbalanced because now unless you play a certain power gaming way you just can't win ( this is the problem i see with pathfinder kingmaker for its higher difficulties )
the wonderful thing at least for the 2nd edition games i played on PC ( never played PnP 2nd edition ) is that no matter what team make up you had, you could always find a way to conquer the challenges at hand
in my opinion, 2nd edition was very well balanced ( again looking at the IE games, not sure how it was with PnP ) 3rd edition, for PC gaming, it always gets out of control, but when it comes to PnP that is where is shines best, because then you can lay the smack down on house rules to control the shenanigans that is going on
for example, in the epic campaign i am running right now the big house rules are; we can only use the 3 core rule books plus the epic players handbook/updated pamphlet ( this helps control the stacking of absurd feats from other books which were completely unfair or just not thought out )
there is absolutely no item creation allowed ( this is a big one if you truly want to hold balance in your game, especially if you know how to create mega items using page 285 of the DM's guide, you can create some outrageously good stuff )
and we changed some feats around; dodge; now actually just gives you a +1 dodge bonus to AC, toughness actually gives you 1 HP/level can only be taken once, power attack maxes to +5 and not BAB
and even with that said, since we started our campaign at epic i even gave them the choice of being any creature in the monster manual as long as it said *as player characters* so they could have been ogres, or mind flayers, or centaurs or pixies or lycanthropes, or rakshasas but instead they chose to be; human, dwarf and gray elf hahaha
Yeah, that's also true. No matter how strong you were, you weren't invincible in 2nd edition. Go into an encounter unprepared and you can have long lasting consequences, beyond mere death. You really had to use your brain in 2nd edition and that's why it will always remain my favorite.
I'll just flat-out say it: I don't really like 3rd Edition rules in regards to video games. I'm sure people have their reasons for hating 2nd Edition in tabletop and praising 3.5 as the be all/end all of real-life D&D sessions. I can't speak to that. I read sourcebooks, but that's about the extent of it. But to me, the early Infinity Engine games and Goldbox are what I played long before I ever touched Neverwinter Nights. I like THACO. People act like it's a damn calculus problem. It just means negative numbers are better. It's not rocket science. I like weapon proficiencies. I like that each class you choose has clearly defined weaknesses that are just as important as their strengths to take into account. I like what you have to think about and give-up to multi or dual class.
As for Icewind Dale 2, at least being in the Infinity Engine keeps it SORTA close to the older games. It's 3rd Edition, but it's nowhere near as fully-implemented as it is in Neverwinter Nights and Temple of Elemental Evil. They are still making concessions to the engine. But, I mean, yeah. 2nd Edition all the way.
I'll just flat-out say it: I don't really like 3rd Edition rules in regards to video games. I'm sure people have their reasons for hating 2nd Edition in tabletop and praising 3.5 as the be all/end all of real-life D&D sessions. I can't speak to that. I read sourcebooks, but that's about the extent of it. But to me, the early Infinity Engine games and Goldbox are what I played long before I ever touched Neverwinter Nights. I like THACO. People act like it's a damn calculus problem. It just means negative numbers are better. It's not rocket science. I like weapon proficiencies. I like that each class you choose has clearly defined weaknesses that are just as important as their strengths to take into account. I like what you have to think about and give-up to multi or dual class.
As for Icewind Dale 2, at least being in the Infinity Engine keeps it SORTA close to the older games. It's 3rd Edition, but it's nowhere near as fully-implemented as it is in Neverwinter Nights and Temple of Elemental Evil. They are still making concessions to the engine. But, I mean, yeah. 2nd Edition all the way.
to bad there wasn't a way to like and agree to this
the baldur's gate games were my introduction to DnD and perhaps because of that i have a bit of a bias to their rule set, but i also agree that i like the thac0 system, and as you said, some people make it seem like its way harder than it actually is, and as you say; when it comes to AC, thac0 and saving throws the lower the better, not hard to figure out, infact saving throws are super easy to figure out; whatever your save is; just roll higher and you pass, pretty simple stuff
There are many, many things I at the same time like and dislike about 2nd edition and 3rd/3.5th edition. AD&D has way better campaign settings as a whole for instance, but I absolutely hate how the rules depict Rangers as some sort of goody-two-shoe Robin Hood chrome copy. D&D 3rd/3.5th did away with their silly aligmnent restriction and went with the Hunter style which I personally favour quite a bit... but that came at the cost of throwing away a fair chunk of the settings themselves. I still remember my utter disappointment when I found out the Monster Manual back then replaced Modrons with some kind of Silver Surfer look-alikes. Urgh.
As far as rulesets in video game adaptions go: IwD2 beats IwD every time. As mentioned already - I love the Ranger class but abhor its Ad&D iteration.
Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.
Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.
Let me give you an idea of what fighters did past 20th level, granted, alot of this wasn't really implemented in the IE games, and what was implemented was less powerful than their PnP counterparts, but a lot of it was very useful in PnP.
Hardiness:
"Warriors with this skill can use their inner strength to temporarily delay the
harmful effects of special attacks, but not physical damage. If given sufficient time to
rest, this skill allows warriors to recover from such attacks without additional aid.
When subjected to a harmful special effect from a spell, creature, or magical item, a
warrior can roll a skill check. If the check succeeds, the effect is delayed for the period of
time shown on the table below. If the check fails, the warrior suffers the effect normally.
If the effect allows a saving throw, the warrior rolls the save before checking this skill.
If the skill succeeds, the warrior suffers no harm from the effect until the delay ends,
but he is aware of what the effect is. If the warrior receives the appropriate cure before
the delay ends, there is no harm to the character. If the harmful effect’s duration is shorter
than the delay there also is no effect."
This is probably the best ability in the entire 2nd edition, in my opinion. This skill can shrug off so many things that would insta-kill anyone else if it connected. Petrification, gone. Instant death, gone. Lost levels, gone. Etc, etc. Actually far better than how they implemented it into TOB. Warriors become annoyingly hard to kill by any means short of physical combat or standard magic damage, both suboptimal ways to deal with a high level fighter.
This ability also comes with a side ability, Heroic Effort, allowing you to fight on past 0 hit points all the way to -20 as a last ditch effort.
All-around Attack:
"A warrior with this skill is capable of launching a massive blow that
can be extended into a whirlwind physical attack that damages every enemy within reach."
Self explanatory, really.
Death Blow:
"This skill allows warriors to strike deadly blows that can fell an opponent in
a single stroke.
A death blow must be announced in a round’s player determination step. In the
round’s resolution step, the warrior makes a single attack roll against any adjacent
opponent. If the attack hits, the opponent suffers normal damage and is slain immediately if they fail to save vs. death magic. Creatures with more hit dice than the player, or who are immune to the weapon type, are unaffected."
Again, far better than the TOB implementation, because it is useful against a far greater variety of powerful enemies.
Signature Item:
"A warrior with this skill chooses an item from the character’s collection
of equipment as a personal trademark that is specially protected from twists of fate.
The warrior designates a signature item by giving it a name and noting something
distinctive about it. If the item has no distinguishing features, the character must hire an
artisan with the appropriate skill—such as a weaponsmith for a sword—to add one. The
alteration could be as simple as engraving the item’s name somewhere upon its surface or
as elaborate as the character desires (and can afford). No skill check is required to
designate an item, and as soon as the item is designated, described, and named, the
warrior forms an empathic link with it. It is possible to have more than one signature
item, but the character must pay the full cost of this skill for each item. **If the warrior
improves the skill score, the improvement applies to all the character’s signature
equipment.**"
Kind of a roundabout way of saying that you can designate special equipment, and increase the stats of all at once for the price of one item. Fighters have the easiest time obtaining the highest quality equipment.
Sense Danger:
This skill allows warriors to discover threats that are not obvious to less
perceptive characters.
The sense danger skill is actually five different subskills, as outlined below. The
number of subskills the warrior knows depends on the character’s level: one subskill at
15th–19th level, two at 20th–24th level, three at 25th–29th level, and four subskills at
30th level or higher. If the character purchases this skill twice, the warrior gains one extra
subskill. Any improvement to the skill number improves all the subskills the character
knows.
Each subskill gives the warrior the ability to detect danger in a different form:"
Essentially, fighters become almost immune to ambushes, sneak attacks, and can learn the stats of a creature just by looking at it.
These aren't all the fighter abilities by any means, but it's enough to get a sense of where they progress. They also gain abilities that give them decent competence in other, non combat areas.
The Ranger class in particular is competitive against spellcasters at all but the highest levels, imo, and even then if you play your cards right. Because they can tame magical beasts and because there are so many magical beasts to choose from with a wide variety of special abilities, what you can accomplish is only limited by your creativity. The Handbook gives you examples of beasts that can do things like destroy buildings and fortifications and give you flight.
At high levels, rangers can have dragons as mounts. Because of their empathic link, the ranger can extend his hardiness ability to the dragon he rides. Both have a natural, blanket protection against any sort of non-damage effect, beyond what they gain from spells, potions, and magical equipment.
The wizard may be supremely powerful, but you can't say this isn't a decently fair fight.
90% of my experience comes from pc games, as opposed to P&P, so take this with a grain of salt. But I've long favored a hybrid between 2 and 3.5. Give me the basic rules and class structure of 2e (and multiclassing!), and toss in the fewer restrictions of 3e. Let me multiclass any two or three classes together (unsing 2e progression), let any race be any class or kit, loosen alignment restrictions, etc. And add feats, the stuff that adds utility to classes, rather than breaks them outright (for good or bad).
The way I have my BG mods set up is actaully very similar to this. Now if only there was a non-insane way to multiclass everything...
Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.
Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.
Honestly, you have a good point. That is the one benefit that I feel 3e has over 2e. I haven't played 5e a ton since there isn't really much in the way of video games, but it seems like it might be the best of both (my only experience is playing a few sessions as a ranger, so my observation is admittedly a poor one). It seems like it did away with the excessive customization and had some nice skill options as classes leveled up, and I liked that. It's why I'd like to see some 5e cRPGs (not counting the casual apps and the failed Sword Coast Legends that we have).
Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.
Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.
I generally prefer 3.5th to 2nd edition but it's not like 3.5 wasn't horribly biased in casters direction too. There's a reason Clerics and Druids and considered the most powerful classes. That's still the case in the computer games too, especially with the looser rest mechanics.
90% of my experience comes from pc games, as opposed to P&P, so take this with a grain of salt. But I've long favored a hybrid between 2 and 3.5. Give me the basic rules and class structure of 2e (and multiclassing!), and toss in the fewer restrictions of 3e. Let me multiclass any two or three classes together (unsing 2e progression), let any race be any class or kit, loosen alignment restrictions, etc. And add feats, the stuff that adds utility to classes, rather than breaks them outright (for good or bad).
The way I have my BG mods set up is actaully very similar to this. Now if only there was a non-insane way to multiclass everything...
Absolutely. In an ideal world that is exactly how things would be done. You take the best of A and the best of B and combine them together to get C.
Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.
Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.
Honestly, you have a good point. That is the one benefit that I feel 3e has over 2e. I haven't played 5e a ton since there isn't really much in the way of video games, but it seems like it might be the best of both (my only experience is playing a few sessions as a ranger, so my observation is admittedly a poor one). It seems like it did away with the excessive customization and had some nice skill options as classes leveled up, and I liked that. It's why I'd like to see some 5e cRPGs (not counting the casual apps and the failed Sword Coast Legends that we have).
The fighter class is my favorite class to play in D&D, although I also like ranger and paladin. And as such I always felt these classes got the shaft in 2e. @WarChiefZeke I do appreciate your input.
Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.
Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.
I generally prefer 3.5th to 2nd edition but it's not like 3.5 wasn't horribly biased in casters direction too. There's a reason Clerics and Druids and considered the most powerful classes. That's still the case in the computer games too, especially with the looser rest mechanics.
Yes of course. I think all editions of D&D favored the casting classes to one extent or another. But for me at least in 3.5e the martial classes felt like you finally could go somewhere with them.
Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.
Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.
I generally prefer 3.5th to 2nd edition but it's not like 3.5 wasn't horribly biased in casters direction too. There's a reason Clerics and Druids and considered the most powerful classes. That's still the case in the computer games too, especially with the looser rest mechanics.
You could really gimp casters in both editions by requiring the use of spell components. Most ignored those rules because it really lowered the power level of casters, I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that used them. Imagine needing to sacrifice a gemstone for every cast of stoneskin.
Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.
Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.
I generally prefer 3.5th to 2nd edition but it's not like 3.5 wasn't horribly biased in casters direction too. There's a reason Clerics and Druids and considered the most powerful classes. That's still the case in the computer games too, especially with the looser rest mechanics.
You could really gimp casters in both editions by requiring the use of spell components. Most ignored those rules because it really lowered the power level of casters, I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that used them. Imagine needing to sacrifice a gemstone for every cast of stoneskin.
at least where 3rd edition is concerned, if a spell has a component of less than 1 GP even the players hand book says don't worry about ( it basically just says; assume your wizard filled up their pouch during any "down time" )
but with that being said, a wizard should not be able to cast their spells if their pouch is gone ( and if they don't have the eschew materials feat ) or if they don't have their spell book ( unless they have spell knowledge feat i believe it is )
but with sorcerers as far as i know dont need material components since its "magic from within themselves" or some such, there for sure don't need a spell book at least
in my campaign anything that had a costly component we always paid the price ( except for stoneskin because that price is just plain stupid for a spell that is perfectly balanced for its level - and yet mordenkainen's disjunction has no costly component lol? - )
every since day 1, 100 gold or white pearls to identify items, although we also have a rule that if you roll a high enough knowledge arcana check you can identify items that way
and you have to keep the prices for the raise dead spells, if you make it so all the raise dead spells cost nothing, then there is no consequence for death in your campaign, and basically no fear for it, unless you get a party wipe, you just lololol it up and everyone is back to normal, although in my campaign, the raise dead spells still cost as much, i dont use that ridiculous CON loss rule, the gold piece cost is enough, plus with that, i make it so true resurrection just takes 1 round to cast ( so then there is an actual difference between true and normal resurrection )
Hey I never said 3.5e was the be all end all of rulesets. I generally don't like the d20 system. Only that 3.5e was way better than 2e.
Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.
I generally prefer 3.5th to 2nd edition but it's not like 3.5 wasn't horribly biased in casters direction too. There's a reason Clerics and Druids and considered the most powerful classes. That's still the case in the computer games too, especially with the looser rest mechanics.
You could really gimp casters in both editions by requiring the use of spell components. Most ignored those rules because it really lowered the power level of casters, I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that used them. Imagine needing to sacrifice a gemstone for every cast of stoneskin.
at least where 3rd edition is concerned, if a spell has a component of less than 1 GP even the players hand book says don't worry about ( it basically just says; assume your wizard filled up their pouch during any "down time" )
but with that being said, a wizard should not be able to cast their spells if their pouch is gone ( and if they don't have the eschew materials feat ) or if they don't have their spell book ( unless they have spell knowledge feat i believe it is )
but with sorcerers as far as i know dont need material components since its "magic from within themselves" or some such, there for sure don't need a spell book at least
in my campaign anything that had a costly component we always paid the price ( except for stoneskin because that price is just plain stupid for a spell that is perfectly balanced for its level - and yet mordenkainen's disjunction has no costly component lol? - )
every since day 1, 100 gold or white pearls to identify items, although we also have a rule that if you roll a high enough knowledge arcana check you can identify items that way
and you have to keep the prices for the raise dead spells, if you make it so all the raise dead spells cost nothing, then there is no consequence for death in your campaign, and basically no fear for it, unless you get a party wipe, you just lololol it up and everyone is back to normal, although in my campaign, the raise dead spells still cost as much, i dont use that ridiculous CON loss rule, the gold piece cost is enough, plus with that, i make it so true resurrection just takes 1 round to cast ( so then there is an actual difference between true and normal resurrection )
I always used the 1 permanent CON loss rule whenbeing brought back to life. Makes it so that deaths matter. You only have a handful before you start losing power fast. And if you get too low, I may just give you a crippling disease due to your ill health, provided you aren't immune to such things by class.
Chronic decapitations are known to cause long term health problems.
Comments
I completely disagree with that, personally. 2e made every high level class feel extremely important in their own way, but especially the mages, druids, and clerics. Basically everything changes once you can cast the Wish spell. There is very little that you can not do at that stage.
Don't forget that the HLA's from TOB were also based on (for the most part) real high level abilities that were available in second edition, and not all of them were implemented. A high level cleric can call a crusade and raise an army very quickly.
then skip over to 3rd edition games and eventually it gets to the point where you don't need wizards and clerics casting flashy spells because your team is so unstoppable there is no point ( this i find is way more prevalent in nwn1 and 2 ) the sense of danger fades, and now it just feels like a big of a slog to get through
but then one might argue that in IWD 2 they have HoF mode and hardcore difficulty, but all that does is arbitrarily increase enemy to hit/damage/saves/HP and makes its even more unbalanced because now unless you play a certain power gaming way you just can't win ( this is the problem i see with pathfinder kingmaker for its higher difficulties )
the wonderful thing at least for the 2nd edition games i played on PC ( never played PnP 2nd edition ) is that no matter what team make up you had, you could always find a way to conquer the challenges at hand
in my opinion, 2nd edition was very well balanced ( again looking at the IE games, not sure how it was with PnP ) 3rd edition, for PC gaming, it always gets out of control, but when it comes to PnP that is where is shines best, because then you can lay the smack down on house rules to control the shenanigans that is going on
for example, in the epic campaign i am running right now the big house rules are; we can only use the 3 core rule books plus the epic players handbook/updated pamphlet ( this helps control the stacking of absurd feats from other books which were completely unfair or just not thought out )
there is absolutely no item creation allowed ( this is a big one if you truly want to hold balance in your game, especially if you know how to create mega items using page 285 of the DM's guide, you can create some outrageously good stuff )
and we changed some feats around; dodge; now actually just gives you a +1 dodge bonus to AC, toughness actually gives you 1 HP/level can only be taken once, power attack maxes to +5 and not BAB
and even with that said, since we started our campaign at epic i even gave them the choice of being any creature in the monster manual as long as it said *as player characters* so they could have been ogres, or mind flayers, or centaurs or pixies or lycanthropes, or rakshasas but instead they chose to be; human, dwarf and gray elf hahaha
As for Icewind Dale 2, at least being in the Infinity Engine keeps it SORTA close to the older games. It's 3rd Edition, but it's nowhere near as fully-implemented as it is in Neverwinter Nights and Temple of Elemental Evil. They are still making concessions to the engine. But, I mean, yeah. 2nd Edition all the way.
to bad there wasn't a way to like and agree to this
the baldur's gate games were my introduction to DnD and perhaps because of that i have a bit of a bias to their rule set, but i also agree that i like the thac0 system, and as you said, some people make it seem like its way harder than it actually is, and as you say; when it comes to AC, thac0 and saving throws the lower the better, not hard to figure out, infact saving throws are super easy to figure out; whatever your save is; just roll higher and you pass, pretty simple stuff
As far as rulesets in video game adaptions go: IwD2 beats IwD every time. As mentioned already - I love the Ranger class but abhor its Ad&D iteration.
Also re. high-level characters in 2e, yes it was fine for spellcasting classes. But please do tell me exactly how things work for the martial classes even just after 10th level? There is literally nothing to be gained for the martial classes and especially the fighter class.
Hardiness:
harmful effects of special attacks, but not physical damage. If given sufficient time to
rest, this skill allows warriors to recover from such attacks without additional aid.
When subjected to a harmful special effect from a spell, creature, or magical item, a
warrior can roll a skill check. If the check succeeds, the effect is delayed for the period of
time shown on the table below. If the check fails, the warrior suffers the effect normally.
If the effect allows a saving throw, the warrior rolls the save before checking this skill.
Warrior Level
Delay
15–19 5 Rounds
20–24 10 Rounds
25–29 15 Rounds
If the skill succeeds, the warrior suffers no harm from the effect until the delay ends,
but he is aware of what the effect is. If the warrior receives the appropriate cure before
the delay ends, there is no harm to the character. If the harmful effect’s duration is shorter
than the delay there also is no effect."
This is probably the best ability in the entire 2nd edition, in my opinion. This skill can shrug off so many things that would insta-kill anyone else if it connected. Petrification, gone. Instant death, gone. Lost levels, gone. Etc, etc. Actually far better than how they implemented it into TOB. Warriors become annoyingly hard to kill by any means short of physical combat or standard magic damage, both suboptimal ways to deal with a high level fighter.
This ability also comes with a side ability, Heroic Effort, allowing you to fight on past 0 hit points all the way to -20 as a last ditch effort.
All-around Attack:
"A warrior with this skill is capable of launching a massive blow that
can be extended into a whirlwind physical attack that damages every enemy within reach."
Self explanatory, really.
Death Blow:
"This skill allows warriors to strike deadly blows that can fell an opponent in
a single stroke.
A death blow must be announced in a round’s player determination step. In the
round’s resolution step, the warrior makes a single attack roll against any adjacent
opponent. If the attack hits, the opponent suffers normal damage and is slain immediately if they fail to save vs. death magic. Creatures with more hit dice than the player, or who are immune to the weapon type, are unaffected."
Again, far better than the TOB implementation, because it is useful against a far greater variety of powerful enemies.
Signature Item:
of equipment as a personal trademark that is specially protected from twists of fate.
The warrior designates a signature item by giving it a name and noting something
distinctive about it. If the item has no distinguishing features, the character must hire an
artisan with the appropriate skill—such as a weaponsmith for a sword—to add one. The
alteration could be as simple as engraving the item’s name somewhere upon its surface or
as elaborate as the character desires (and can afford). No skill check is required to
designate an item, and as soon as the item is designated, described, and named, the
warrior forms an empathic link with it. It is possible to have more than one signature
item, but the character must pay the full cost of this skill for each item. **If the warrior
improves the skill score, the improvement applies to all the character’s signature
equipment.**"
Kind of a roundabout way of saying that you can designate special equipment, and increase the stats of all at once for the price of one item. Fighters have the easiest time obtaining the highest quality equipment.
Sense Danger:
perceptive characters.
The sense danger skill is actually five different subskills, as outlined below. The
number of subskills the warrior knows depends on the character’s level: one subskill at
15th–19th level, two at 20th–24th level, three at 25th–29th level, and four subskills at
30th level or higher. If the character purchases this skill twice, the warrior gains one extra
subskill. Any improvement to the skill number improves all the subskills the character
knows.
Each subskill gives the warrior the ability to detect danger in a different form:"
Essentially, fighters become almost immune to ambushes, sneak attacks, and can learn the stats of a creature just by looking at it.
These aren't all the fighter abilities by any means, but it's enough to get a sense of where they progress. They also gain abilities that give them decent competence in other, non combat areas.
At high levels, rangers can have dragons as mounts. Because of their empathic link, the ranger can extend his hardiness ability to the dragon he rides. Both have a natural, blanket protection against any sort of non-damage effect, beyond what they gain from spells, potions, and magical equipment.
The wizard may be supremely powerful, but you can't say this isn't a decently fair fight.
The way I have my BG mods set up is actaully very similar to this. Now if only there was a non-insane way to multiclass everything...
Honestly, you have a good point. That is the one benefit that I feel 3e has over 2e. I haven't played 5e a ton since there isn't really much in the way of video games, but it seems like it might be the best of both (my only experience is playing a few sessions as a ranger, so my observation is admittedly a poor one). It seems like it did away with the excessive customization and had some nice skill options as classes leveled up, and I liked that. It's why I'd like to see some 5e cRPGs (not counting the casual apps and the failed Sword Coast Legends that we have).
I generally prefer 3.5th to 2nd edition but it's not like 3.5 wasn't horribly biased in casters direction too. There's a reason Clerics and Druids and considered the most powerful classes. That's still the case in the computer games too, especially with the looser rest mechanics.
The fighter class is my favorite class to play in D&D, although I also like ranger and paladin. And as such I always felt these classes got the shaft in 2e. @WarChiefZeke I do appreciate your input.
Yes of course. I think all editions of D&D favored the casting classes to one extent or another. But for me at least in 3.5e the martial classes felt like you finally could go somewhere with them.
You could really gimp casters in both editions by requiring the use of spell components. Most ignored those rules because it really lowered the power level of casters, I don't think I've ever been in a campaign that used them. Imagine needing to sacrifice a gemstone for every cast of stoneskin.
at least where 3rd edition is concerned, if a spell has a component of less than 1 GP even the players hand book says don't worry about ( it basically just says; assume your wizard filled up their pouch during any "down time" )
but with that being said, a wizard should not be able to cast their spells if their pouch is gone ( and if they don't have the eschew materials feat ) or if they don't have their spell book ( unless they have spell knowledge feat i believe it is )
but with sorcerers as far as i know dont need material components since its "magic from within themselves" or some such, there for sure don't need a spell book at least
in my campaign anything that had a costly component we always paid the price ( except for stoneskin because that price is just plain stupid for a spell that is perfectly balanced for its level - and yet mordenkainen's disjunction has no costly component lol? - )
every since day 1, 100 gold or white pearls to identify items, although we also have a rule that if you roll a high enough knowledge arcana check you can identify items that way
and you have to keep the prices for the raise dead spells, if you make it so all the raise dead spells cost nothing, then there is no consequence for death in your campaign, and basically no fear for it, unless you get a party wipe, you just lololol it up and everyone is back to normal, although in my campaign, the raise dead spells still cost as much, i dont use that ridiculous CON loss rule, the gold piece cost is enough, plus with that, i make it so true resurrection just takes 1 round to cast ( so then there is an actual difference between true and normal resurrection )
Chronic decapitations are known to cause long term health problems.