Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 2795128" data-attributes="member: 8863">A 2e feel?  This is how you do it:You don't want ANYTHING that will offend parents who will hate the game no matter what you do.  No demons and devils; no assassins, and get rid of the half-orcs just in case.  Make sure all the major NPCs in the campaign are a bunch of snotty meddling do-gooders (a plus if they DM plays them all the time and outshines the PCs doing so), and villains must be bumbling idiots.Oh wait.  You mean the GOOD feel of 2e.  I  was confused there for a minute.   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious    :]" data-shortname=":]" /> To be honest, I really wasn't sure about this until reading through the thread, and I think these points really focus on the good aspects of 2e:I think these three posts sort of do it for me somewhat.Mainly the biggest thing are the kits; they were always a main feature of 2e.  Downside was the lack of balance and compatability, and the fact that some kit concepts from the class books were repeated under the race books but with different names.  The total lack of compatability Merrick mentioned was a downside.  To do kits in 3e, I'd take some basic concepts, like a Noble, Peasant Hero, Pirate, Swashbucler, whatever, and present it as a list of recdommended classes (including prestige classes), skills and feats.  Sort of a loose blueprint for character building, I would not include specific numbers of class levels, or skill ranks, or say that certain feats are required.The character class groups was once of the better ideas of 2e.   Don't really know how I'd apply it to 3e though.Both Cam and Merrick mention another point: the fact that 2e went every which way after the release of the "core books", and in ways that were imcompatible, or at least difficult to use together.  The problem comes from different groups of designers working simultaneously on multiple game worlds and freelancers who seemed to write the material independantly.  There doesn't seem to have been any sort of central group coordinating any of these efforts.In some ways 2e is like the bridge from 1e to 3e.  Particularly the Player's Option series, that's where the whole idea of character options originated, and Combat and Tactics saw the introduction of some important 3e concepts: AoOs, facing, weapon reach, even some proto-feats.  The biggest problem with PO is that is tried to pice together stuff that had been bolted onto D&D every which way over 20 years, and which did not always try to fit together.  That for me is the best aspect of 3e; going back to the roots and reworking the material from the ground up, but this time doing it at once rather than piecemeal.</blockquote>

Verification