BryonD said:
Henry, I look at your list and I see you equating removed races and classes on the one hand to tweaked mechanics on the other. I don't see the equality.
Sorry - what I am trying to clarify is the toning down of sources of perceived imbalance that were going on between both editions. In 2e, they removed drow, duergar, gray elves, etc. because they were much more powerful than elves and dwarves. They removed weapon double specializations (and replaced it with all sorts of fun things in the complete handbooks).
In 3.5, they've done the same thing.
Haste creating two-gunned wizards? Disintegrate and hold person not fun? Crit's getting out of hand? Tone 'em down.
And the similarity is this: 1st and 2nd were VERY interoperable. Our group played a mix of each for 10 years. You could have rangers with old-style giant-class enemies, and Cavaliers next to Kitted-up characters. There was compatibility of rules, if not balances.
Here, we have the same thing. the differences between 3 and 3.5 are so small as to be interoperable. You will see mix-matches of "3.25" across the board.
Psion Said:
The difference being that the changes from 1e->2e were needed (though it didn't do near enough.) All too many of the changes we are seeing now seem to be much less justified, IMO.
I have a difference of opinion on this, because the toning down of weapon spec. in 2e did fighters a big disservice, until the complete handbooks re-added tricks to a fighter's arsenal. Specialists were quite handy compared to plain-vanilla wizards. Half-orcs were removed for little reason. In other words, I find the changes from 1e-2e just as subjective as the changes from 3e to 3.5.
God, I hate that term.
