Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Particle_Man" data-source="post: 1793777" data-attributes="member: 892">Sorry you feel insulted.&nbsp; I was, in fact, comparing 1st ed., with all the bells and whistles (including UA), with 2nd ed., with all the bells and whistles.&nbsp; You are comparing 1st ed (core) with 2nd ed (core).&nbsp; Too bad you didn't say that earlier, it would have cleared up any misunderstanding.So how I would look at it is that, as far as balance goes, 3rd ed core is most balanced, then 3rd ed. with options, then 2nd ed. core, then 1st ed. core, then 1st ed. with options, then TOON, and then 2nd ed. with options. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And sorry, 2nd ed. Spells and Powers really took the cake.&nbsp; You could take a cleric, remove access to all spheres except healing, and have enough &quot;points&quot; left over to become like a GOD (permanent True Seeing, for example).&nbsp; I'd be begging for 1st ed. drow cavalier-paladins with a chance of psionics after that one.&nbsp; Options is one thing, but this was options without any thought of balance, except what the DM made up.&nbsp; But if I am needed to step in that much, I could have made stuff up without buying the player's option books.&nbsp; So that turned me off of 2nd ed., back to 1st ed., and (later) made me look forward to 3rd ed.&nbsp; But of course, YMMV.Personally, I am happy with 3rd ed., would be less happy with 2nd ed., would be in-between happy (but almost as happy as 3rd ed.), with 1st ed., and will be VERY happy with C&amp;C, if it lives up to its promises.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Particle_Man, post: 1793777, member: 892"] Sorry you feel insulted. I was, in fact, comparing 1st ed., with all the bells and whistles (including UA), with 2nd ed., with all the bells and whistles. You are comparing 1st ed (core) with 2nd ed (core). Too bad you didn't say that earlier, it would have cleared up any misunderstanding. So how I would look at it is that, as far as balance goes, 3rd ed core is most balanced, then 3rd ed. with options, then 2nd ed. core, then 1st ed. core, then 1st ed. with options, then TOON, and then 2nd ed. with options. :) And sorry, 2nd ed. Spells and Powers really took the cake. You could take a cleric, remove access to all spheres except healing, and have enough "points" left over to become like a GOD (permanent True Seeing, for example). I'd be begging for 1st ed. drow cavalier-paladins with a chance of psionics after that one. Options is one thing, but this was options without any thought of balance, except what the DM made up. But if I am needed to step in that much, I could have made stuff up without buying the player's option books. So that turned me off of 2nd ed., back to 1st ed., and (later) made me look forward to 3rd ed. But of course, YMMV. Personally, I am happy with 3rd ed., would be less happy with 2nd ed., would be in-between happy (but almost as happy as 3rd ed.), with 1st ed., and will be VERY happy with C&C, if it lives up to its promises. [/QUOTE]

Verification