Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zztong" data-source="post: 7912545" data-attributes="member: 6943414">Over our 18 month trial of 2e...Spell descriptions were a frequent trip-up for us. Not only would we confuse 1e and 2e spells, but we would confuse 2e spells with other 2e spells. The spells are going to have the same names as before, but not act the same.You're going to be facing a whole lot of unfamiliar 2e Feats, sometimes with names that will sound like 1e feats, but with exacting and non-obvious interactions with other parts of the system.In the short term...We had some players get frustrated when they assumed their favorite classes would be similar to 1e, but found either large or subtle differences that kind of disappointed them. For instance, I love the 1e Ranger, but hated the 2e Ranger. Another player came to the same conclusion with the Sorcerer. One player bailed on a Druid. Yet another player bailed on the Alchemist. Folks eventually settled on other classes. I, for instance, spent a lot of time exploring multiclass concepts to varied degrees of success. Wizard (Fighter) was cool under 2e, Sorcerer (Rogue) flopped pretty bad (or maybe it was Rogue (Sorcerer) -- I forget now), and Ranger (Druid) didn't lead to a classic Ranger so while it was functional I still wasn't happy because I felt I couldn't make the character I wanted.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zztong, post: 7912545, member: 6943414"] Over our 18 month trial of 2e... Spell descriptions were a frequent trip-up for us. Not only would we confuse 1e and 2e spells, but we would confuse 2e spells with other 2e spells. The spells are going to have the same names as before, but not act the same. You're going to be facing a whole lot of unfamiliar 2e Feats, sometimes with names that will sound like 1e feats, but with exacting and non-obvious interactions with other parts of the system. In the short term... We had some players get frustrated when they assumed their favorite classes would be similar to 1e, but found either large or subtle differences that kind of disappointed them. For instance, I love the 1e Ranger, but hated the 2e Ranger. Another player came to the same conclusion with the Sorcerer. One player bailed on a Druid. Yet another player bailed on the Alchemist. Folks eventually settled on other classes. I, for instance, spent a lot of time exploring multiclass concepts to varied degrees of success. Wizard (Fighter) was cool under 2e, Sorcerer (Rogue) flopped pretty bad (or maybe it was Rogue (Sorcerer) -- I forget now), and Ranger (Druid) didn't lead to a classic Ranger so while it was functional I still wasn't happy because I felt I couldn't make the character I wanted. [/QUOTE]

Verification