Does anyone else think D&D 4th edition should be more like 2nd edition

[warlord]

Am I a Troll just because you disagree with me or do you have valid reasons. Also the great hing about 2nd ed. was that it was easy to change. If you didn't like it you could change it and Gygax himself has said todays D&D is completely different from his and too rule intensive and I agree with him.

 

[CRGreathouse]

(I don't care if it's a troll, as I'd like to comment.)

No, I would not prefer that. If D&D takes a step in that direction in future revisions/editions, I won't buy them.

I couldn't stand 2E. 3E's consistant mechanics and player/character freedom are a godsend to me.

 

[Torm]

Personally I hate 3rd edition and 3.5

So, basically, what you're saying is that your hat of D02 know no limit?

I do believe I've heard this complaint before somewhere.

 

[Desdichado]

Am I a Troll just because you disagree with me or do you have valid reasons [?]

You're a troll because coming to a d20 message board and saying your hate of d02 (otherwise known as teh suxx0r) know no limit is the definition of trollish behavior. Naturally, I'm paraphrasing, but I think you get the point.

Also, because you talk about TSR and Gary Gygax as if you know what you're talking about, but apparently haven't bothered to read any of the publicly available descriptions of how things went down with AD&D 1e and 2e.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

No, no I don't.

And yes, going to a site primarily dedicated to 3e and saying that you think that 2e was better might very well be a troll. Try going to a Mac board and saying that you hope that the next Mac operating system is more like Windows.

And Gary Gygax is also the person who said 'If you use house rules you aren't really playing AD&D.' So he is on record as saying that changing the rules is a bad thing. Not the person to cite for the ease with which the rules of 2nd ed (by which time he had already left TSR, for a number of reasons).

And yes, it is darned near impossible to change the 3e rules set, that is why so many companies have done so. :roll eyes:

The Auld Grump

 

[skinnydwarf]

Personally I hate 3rd edition and 3.5 WoTC completely changed all the rules they screwed up monster HD added monster classes(and Savage Species was just crap),gave all the classes the same xp bonus and made it a low tech version of the Star Wars RPG I like that game but I want my Jedi and Dwarven fighters seperated.

By Moradin, it's called the period!

 

[Dark Jezter]

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, basically, what you're saying is that your hat of D02 know no limit?

Haven't seen that in a while...

Actually, I can live with changes in D20 that may result in 4Ed as long as it remains user freindly.

There is one and only change I'd like to see- either the elimination of Psionics from the game or the inclusion of Psionics in the Basic PHB rulebook. Why? Because I have often been preempted from playing Psions and other classes because they are from expansion books, but have seldom been kept from playing anything out of the PHB.

 

[Henry]

There's no problem with agreeing with Gary in your feeling on 3E/3.5E. Heck, a lot of people love playing 3E, and then turn right around and pick up original D&D (the little books in the old brown box) and play that with just as much gusto!

It would be a mistake in assuming that there is such a break between the two that one is "screwed up" and the other is noticably better. AD&D, it is true, did not have a lot of interdependence in its rules systems; however, some people see this as a flaw, not a feature. Some see it easier to add to a system, but the questions come in - is it balanced? Does the DM have a good enough handle on the totally from-scratch rule system he's putting in? Is he arbitrarily changing his new rules every time he runs them? Some people don't mind, but others do - like me.

For me, 3E has freed me from dependence on a ton of house rules; it has also given me the fudge mechanic of a LIFETIME (the DC.) That's why I like it.

 

[wingsandsword]

Am I a Troll just because you disagree with me or do you have valid reasons. Also the great hing about 2nd ed. was that it was easy to change. If you didn't like it you could change it and Gygax himself has said todays D&D is completely different from his and too rule intensive and I agree with him.

Too rule intensive? Take a nice long look again at the 1e PHB and DMG, they were far more "rule intensive" than 3e. Memorize class requirements, prime requisites, dozens of non-weapon proficiencies, level limits, completely different rules for doing only slightly different things, and multiple "official" main ways of doing things. 3e has a simple, core game mechanic (roll a d20 and add modifiers, try to beat a target number), and a framework that is built off of that. If you really wanted, you could make an abbreviated handout of 3e ala GURPS Lite and show the 3e/d20 core in a 32 page handout.

3.x is highly adaptable, hence the entire d20 industry devoted to changing it, and the various games based off it's framework. If your big beef is making monks the main martial artists and removing the old MA rules, try importing the Combat Martial Arts feat tree from d20 Modern, the base feat is less powerful than a Monk at 1st level (so there is still a reason to be a Monk), but it makes unarmed combat a viable option, and the feat tree makes being an unarmed combattant balanced and viable.

Here's some little secrets:
1. Nobody's forcing you to play 3rd Edition, if you can find the players you can play any edition of D&D all the way back to Original D&D vintage 1974 (and make Diaglo smile), or even old Chainmail.

2. If you like the whole "old style" D&D and are looking for support with it, KenzerCo does make HackMaster, which is licensed from old AD&D and is AD&D expanded and updated (which describes itself in some places as what 3rd Edition might have been in another world where the d20 System never came around).