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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5884457" data-attributes="member: 3400">I'm going to have to disagree with you on a few points here.I think 2e was better balanced on a number of factors. The saving throw target values, being based almost entirely on the target not on the caster's optimized casting stat, was a good balancing principle that avoided some of the problems we see in 3e. Not all values were well thought out (what is with the thief's terrible saves?!?), but the structure kept the save or die spell + maximized casting state strategy from being as strong a strategy as it became in 3e. Evocations balanced against them much better in 1e and 2e than in 3e.Absolutely, magic items help the non-casters more than the casters. That's why 1e's treasure tables were skewed away from wands and bracers of armor and toward consumables and weapons/armor. Fortunately, ExploderWizard isn't advocating getting rid of magical equipment. But 3e's magic item creation negates the scarcity of wizardly/clerical items by making it easier for the casters to get them on their own terms. Pathfinder offers a reasonable fix to this by allowing non-casters to use craft skills to compensate. But the initial problems rest with 3e's easy item creation. I won't even get into the way magic item creation promotes the Big 6. That's another problem altogether.If we listened to what was unfun every time someone complained about a limit that affected them, we'd end up with 4e. Actually, I think we did end up with 4e and now we're already moving on to something else.Cyclical initiative makes running combats a bit smoother, but it does come with a cost and that cost is casters with a lot less fear of being disrupted. It's not the only factor leading in that direction (concentration checks and 5 foot steps certainly add to it, as does packing most spells into a standard action). But 2e's initiative system was quite a bit better at getting casters to make tactical choices between getting a spell off or increasing the risk of disruption. This was a good thing.</blockquote>

Verification