Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 6250540">Putting aside whether or not two weopon fighting is a flat better option, lets say it is, which i essentially di in prior post. My point was the existence of a single broken option in 2E, doesnt make it a worse balanced game than 3E which has countless such possibilities lurking in the form of various combinations of classes and feats. I think we have a fundamental division over what balance means. I can accept you require different things when it comes to balance. To me a system where a fighter is good at fighting out of the gate, and classes are balanced pver the campaign (so the wizard eventually becomes a mighty character even though he stafts out weak) is balanced. Understand as well, 2E is a system where the luck of the die matters. Your example hinges on a truly exceptional strength roll for example. I can undertsand you not liking 2E. I can see how you might find it clunky for example. But you are honestly one of the first people i have encountered who genuinely believes it is less well balanced than 3E (which was famous for having balance issues). If you think 2E is less balanced than 3E then i wont try to convince you otherwise, but having played both games extensively (each one for ten years straight at least), and having just resumed using 2E, i just can't agree.</blockquote>