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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NewJeffCT" data-source="post: 6141554" data-attributes="member: 10784">Weighing in late here, as usual.I found a lot more rules-lawyering going on in 2E than in 3.5E because 3.5E had rules for just about everything, which could bog down the game. I remember my 2E DM had a whole 3-ring binder full of House Rules - he wanted to be consistent because most of his group had been together through most of the 80s and 90s, and if he ruled differently than previously, he'd be called on it ("well, 3 campaigns and 6 years ago, you said B, and now you say A??")  So, he'd have to go to his binder to confirm his previous ruling and then possibly reverse course if he was in the wrong - he was pretty anal about being consistent, even if it was something he had ruled on 10 years earlier.However, for 3.5E, this same DM had only a few pages of house rules because he could just look up a rule in one of the rulebooks, instead of his binder.  And, because there were rules for so many things in 3.5, people had better be right if they challenged something that was in the actual rulebooks, which ended up leading to less rules-lawyering.That said, 2E combats ran a lot quicker than 3E and 3.5E combats.  Fewer options for the players and monsters, lower hit points for the PCs and monsters, etc.  We could run a 2E combat that had twice as many participants (PCs, NPCs, monsters combined) in half the time it took to run a smaller 3.5E combat, or possibly even less than half the time.  Plus, if you used the optional death at -10 rule in 2E, it was also harder to die.  If a PC was dropped below zero, all a PC or friendly NPC had to do was reach the fallen PC to stanch the bleeding.  No heal checks, no roll for stabilization, etc.  You reached 'em, you saved 'em.</blockquote>

Verification