Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonhelm" data-source="post: 3992163" data-attributes="member: 3867">Hehe.  THAC0 wasn't as bad as people make it out to be.  It's simple math, after all.  That being said, I prefer the Base Attack Bonus mechanic in 3e.  Roll a d20, add a modifier.  Easy peasy.The 4e designers have commented on how 3e's skill system has the problem of characters either being Jack-of-all-trades or min/maxing with skill ranks.  It's a lot of number crunching, especially on higher levels.  2e's problem, though, was that it was really hard to improve at a skill.  I'm really liking the Star Wars Saga Edition skills (presuming they will be used for 4e as well).  Your level factors in, taking away the need for skill ranks.  Yet you can specialize to a certain degree as well so that your numbers aren't all the same.  Want to be a really great pilot?  Well, just be trained in that skill and take skill focus, and you're the best of the best.  Feats are a fantastic idea to add to the D&D game.  It allows for a certain level of customization.  I'm not sure that they're used the way they were meant.  While every character is supposed to be different, how many fighters take the same groupings of feat trees?  This is why I like True20's feat system.  It takes out a lot of prerequisites, thereby allowing for greater customization. I thought death in 2e was at -10 as well.  That's how we always did it in the games I played.  *scratches head*I would say that I liked 2e's combat better, though my version was probably a bit house ruled.  Very freeform.  I hated weapon speed, though.  I really dislike the focus on tactical combat in d20.  It's too rigid.  4e is going to have movement in squares.  Now, I don't normally like that, but I came across one great advantage recently.  I'm no good at determining distance, so that would help to determine that.  So I'm going to give it a chance.  I don't care for attacks of opportunity, myself.  I have had mostly bad experiences with that rule, including a character (a psion) who couldn't act in a round because he was being attacked.  I kinda like morale, but it seems to me that it's much easier to ask what the monster would do.  If a kobold's buddies are all dead and he's the only one left, he's going to run away.  If the opponent is a dragon, he's not going anywhere.  Just use your best judgment and you're fine.That is a tricky question.  There is no doubt in my mind that 3e saved D&D from extinction.  I think it has been good for the hobby in general.  I think mechanically, it is better in several places (though not all).What I miss from 2e is the flavor and feel.  3e reads like a fantasy technical manual at times.  I miss the settings.  Truly, that is 2e's greatest legacy, and I have yet to see 3e do as good of a job of it all (though we rocked the house with Dragonlance <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).  I think 2e had some books that were better than the 3e counterparts.  The 2e Arms & Equipment Guide is one of my all-time faves.  I've heard many people say they preferred the 2e Tome of Magic.My advice would be to dust off the old 2e books and give the game a whirl again.  Compare it to 3e, then see which one you like to play.  If it's hard deciding, then I'd recommend looking into Castles & Crusades, which is a nice hybrid of AD&D and d20.  You can easily port rules in too, so you can mix up NWPs and feats if you want.  Good luck, and good gaming!</blockquote>

Verification