Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Speaker in Dream" data-source="post: 6141094" data-attributes="member: 95031">3.5e did good things unifying mechanics, but went overboard on empowering casters. The big downfall, though, is that the designers set out with the idea of creating "trap" choices in the game mechanics and wanted "system mastery" to be a feature of the game. What can you say about a game that sets out as a design goal to intentionally obfuscate some of the design nuances? 2e, IMO, was better on class balances and class identity/feeling of leveling via the different exp charts, etc. It was also pretty balanced in caster vs. non-caster confrontations. Additionally, letting warriors be the best in combat types period was a good thing it had going. Letting warriors have the best overall saves was also another nod in favor of the warriors (as they grew in level anyway). It let the casters cast, but the warriors could still bounce heavy effects off of their chests as needed. Definitely strengths and weaknesses in both, but for me - that's why I went to Myth & Magic - it brought the good/best of both versions together and created something pretty dang solid, IMO.</blockquote>