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

[SkidAce]

I remember having thac0 explained to me and thinking; "What a great idea, much better than using the tables."

Same here.

But go back to 2ed? No way...3ed fixed a lot of stuff that we had house ruled a change to anyway. Basically we were already using the multi-classing rules...and had done away with demi-human level limits. So it made our game official.

I have often wondered how good word of mouth communication was before the Internet. I mean everywhere I moved in the mlitary for 15 years...I saw people with the same "independantly" developed house rules.

/rant and then Monte Cook replaces the Great Wheel with MY cosmology...how rude...I guess we both read Moorcock /rant off

/tangent off

 

[apsuman]

no on going toward a 2e feel.

I hated a lot about 2e.

I did however, like weapon speed rules. I know this puts me in a minority, but I would like to see them come back, even if as an optional rule.

 

[JimAde]

no on going toward a 2e feel.

I hated a lot about 2e.

I did however, like weapon speed rules. I know this puts me in a minority, but I would like to see them come back, even if as an optional rule.

Emerald Press just put out a small PDF all about initiative, which includes some weapon speed stuff. At $2 it's probably worth it for you to check out:

http://www.emeraldpress.net/initiative.html

And a review from Crothian here on EN World:

http://www.enworld.org/reviews/index.php?sub=yes&where=active&reviewer=Crothian&product=COI

 

[nahualt]

just go play HACKMASTER..its D&D 1.5

 

[Morpheus]

Let's see...how can I put this diplomatically..."Not in a million years!"...

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

I wouldn't mind going back to a 2e feel- I liked the art and the looks of 2nd edition much better than 3e's video-gamy, dungeon-punk feel. Sorry, I want my core D&D to be Tolkien, not Mieville. But this is a dead horse that's been beaten, reanimated, beaten again, and reanimated until it takes up residence in the Tomb of Horrors and sucks out the souls of adventurers who forgot their shatter spells and vorpal swords, so I'll shut up about it.

But the system? No thanks. While I have my gripes about 3e (the Monk and Barbarian core classes, no Cavalier core class, some still overpowered spells, the excessive "crunch" of the supplements), the system beats the pants off of the previous editions, and some of the reasons "warlord" cited for not liking it (monster classes) are among the reasons... anyone remember the 2nd edition "Complete Humanoid's Handbook"? After someone brought a 25-Strength 1st level Minotaur Fighter to the table, I permanently banned that book... yipes...

 

[Psion]

Oh, I understand THAC0. And it is better than tables. But it still adds an additional operation (and subtraction of negative numbers, which some find counter-intuitive) and clefts your addition into separate steps. It's rather less elegant than it needs to be. 3e is simply superior on this score.

 

[cjs]

Oh, I understand THAC0. And it is better than tables. But it still adds an additional operation (and subtraction of negative numbers, which some find counter-intuitive) and clefts your addition into separate steps. It's rather less elegant than it needs to be. 3e is simply superior on this score.

Huh? This is how we do it (B/X D&D):

1. Player rolls d20 and subtracts results from THAC0, which has already been calculated to include strength bonus, magical weapons (if not kept secret by DM) etc.
2. Player tells DM what AC he hits (the result from the above subtraction).
3. DM compares this to the monsters AC. If the result is equal or lower than the AC, the player has hit the monster.

Seems pretty much like 3E to me, with a subtraction instead of an addition...

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

Huh? This is how we do it (B/X D&D):

1. Player rolls d20 and subtracts results from THAC0, which has already been calculated to include strength bonus, magical weapons (if not kept secret by DM) etc.
2. Player tells DM what AC he hits (the result from the above subtraction).
3. DM compares this to the monsters AC. If the result is equal or lower than the AC, the player has hit the monster.

Seems pretty much like 3E to me, with a subtraction instead of an addition...

And that's as simple as 3.x how? Now, my players say "I rolled a 23" or something, which they derived from ADDING a couple of numbers. I look at the monster's stat block for its armor class. If the number that the player said is the same or higher than the armor class number than I know he hit. No subtraction necessary; part of the design philosophy of 3E was that people can execute addition equations in their head much faster than subtraction equations.

In defense of THACO: I never liked it, but it was so much more elegant than those stupid tables in 1E that I actually created a false memory in which that was how 1E had done it all along. I'd actually excisedd those tables right out of my memory. Then I picked up a 1E DMG a couple years ago and just started laughing...

 

[Emiricol]

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.

Nah. I hated 2E, as much as I loved 1E. I stopped playing altogether when 2E started going nuts, say, '90-'91. I didn't get back in until 3E came out. Considering that sales have never been so good as since 3E came out, I think the cravings of a few 2E loyalists are unlikely to sway WotC (in my opinion, a wonderful thing). I think if you want to play 2E, play 2E though. Lots of people do. Lord knows you can pick up virtually all the books at ebay for super cheap.

The worst thing in the world for the hobby would be to republish 2E under the 4E banner.