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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 3993885" data-attributes="member: 8863">THAC0 was still better than attack matices though.I'd say 3e's skill system can be more rewarding for a PC.  It's not as heavily dependant on stats like core 2e; there you don't even want to bother with dump-stat based NWPs, since you'll likely fail most of the time.  Levels have very little to do with it, since PC only get 1 new slot every 3-4 levels and that slot only adds a +1.  If I were to run 2e ever again, I'd kick out the original rules and use Skill's and Power's much better system.As others have said, Death's Door was in 2e (as an option), and there were plenty of monsters that required magic weapons just to hit (and if they had high magic resistance, then you needed a +3 or better weapon to kill them).And besides, it was more balanced if one stuck with core.  Once splatbooks and PO started getting in, then PCs were much more powerful than the monsters.  Monsters were sill pretty much the same since the 1e MM, with nothing to compensate for increasing PC power.  That was another thing 3e improved; giving monsters ability scores wit full bonuses and skills and feats made them more balanced with the PCs.I understand it was to allow the DM to decide whether or not the monsers stick around rather than basing it merely on a die roll. Rules wise, yes 3 was an improvement.  Cleaned up a lot of legacy rules that worked badly together, toughened up monsters, and lessened the impact of bad DM fiat.  However, 2e was still better in presentation.</blockquote>

Verification