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

[Ranger REG]

THAC0's problem was that is was non-intuitive. But it was an improvement over pages of combat matrices used to determine hits. Charts slow down the game even more than subtraction.

Not if you know the art of cross-referencing. We mastered that when playing RoleMaster.

 

[Crothian]

Ah, the good old days of second edition. No rules arguements as most players didn;t understand them anyway. Not like today where the rules are so easy easy everyone gets them. Powerful kits balanced by role playing penalties. Don't know why people complained about them, a role playing penalty is a penatly and its up to the DM to enforce it. Not enforcing them was no different then not enforicing a rule penalty, but no one seemed to do it.

I liked second edition and I could go back. People get to worked up with the rules. Get a good group of people you like and enjoy playing with and the rules are not that big of deal anymore.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

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.

I think this may be changing; notice how Races of Stone includes support for psionic characters. It's almost like it's part of the core system now.

 

[Impeesa]

It's amazing that 3.0 seemed to incorporate so many of our local "house rules" like eliminating level limits, and letting any race being any class, as well as bringing back assassins and monks, we even had a house rule that let characters improve their ability scores as they levelled up. We even had a system for using the character-points from Skills & Powers to buy NWP's as well as special abilities like letting characters use their dexterity on to-hit rolls with light weapons, letting mages have their spells do subdual damage (or not have V, S, or M components), and other abilities, in other words, feats. 3e was taking all our house rules for 2e (which we needed to make it playable really), and remounting them on a consistent, easy to use framework.

3e also solved one of the biggest problems 2e was having towards the end, "legacy code" and rules-bloat. Countless systems in different books for different things (different martial arts rules in Complete Fighter's Handbook, Complete Priest's Handbook, Combat & Tactics, Oriental Adventures & I think also in Complete Gladiator's Handbook), and references to rulebooks you'd need to use a new book, rulebooks that had been out of print for years and never had a big print run to begin with. As well as a gordian knot of rulings, errata, precedent, subtle changes different printings of books, and utterly incompatible or broken suppliments.

That reminds me of something funny... try to wrap your heads around this one, everybody: I know a guy who hates 3E, and insists that 2E was an awesome game. He admits the core rules have some flaws, but insists that it's still a great game because all you need to do is buy thousands of dollars worth of supplements and comb through them for all the necessary fixes. Of course, his real favorite system is Palladium, which should tell you something right there.

--Impeesa--

 

[Krieg]

He admits the core rules have some flaws, but insists that it's still a great game because all you need to do is buy thousands of dollars worth of supplements and comb through them for all the necessary fixes.

Funny, I've heard fans of 3E say that almost verbatim when defending it against attacks from groupies of other systems.

 

[Ibram]

I played in 2e (its where I got my start with D&D) and though I enjoyed it I enjoy 3e much more (from a rules standpoint). 3e (and 3.5e) are far easier to learn and run then 2e ever was, as well as being much easier to modify...

Its kinda like dating... 2e was like dating in highschool, lotsa fun largely because noone knew what they were dooing. 3e is like dating as an adult, the rules are a lot more clear. Now sure I like dating in highschool but I dont have any intrest in groping a 15 year old girl.

 

[Aeolius]

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

No.

When 2e AD&D came out, I took a look at the PH and decided to stick with 1e. 3e made up for 2e, IMO - let's not backtrack.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think this may be changing; notice how Races of Stone includes support for psionic characters. It's almost like it's part of the core system now.

I think you misunderstand- there has always been excellent support for psionics within the game as things expanded- you can find psionically active monsters in even the 1st Edition MM or Dieties and Demigods.

And even the 3Ed stuff is added material-not core.

The problems were:

1) That it was ALL OPTIONAL, and as such, gave an easy out to any DM who didn't want to bother with it. It is the rare DM who excises a part of the core rules simply because he doesn't want to be bothered with it.

2) It was seldom done in such a way that it meshed with the core rules in a balanced and conceptually consistent way. This has led to some Psionic abilities being over- or underpowered vis a vis other PC powers of equivalent level or cost.

If it were part of the core rules, they would HAVE to playtest those rules in conjunction with the other core classes and powers.

 

[Alan Shutko]

Hmmm... personally, I think that D&D is veering a bit too far towards AD&D already. If I take a look at BD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5e, AD&D started as a rules-heavy system with lots of special cases and just strange things, but enough options to hang a forest of dryads. BD&D was a fairly rules-light system, at the cost of some of those options.

2e cleaned up a bunch of the idiosyncracies of 1e, making it seem to me more like BD&D. 3e went even further cleaning things up with the core mechanic, the standardized XP tables, and finally adding in things like magic item creation. It finally combined the proficiency/skill system which had been separate in both AD&D and BD&D. But 3.5e seems to be complicating things again, at least in combat with its emphasis on battle grids. I'd prefer if things were to get simpler.

But that's just me.

 

[KenM]

I like the 3 and 3.5 rules better the the old rules, easier mechanics, you don't have alot of different little rule details to remember.
My problem is IMO WOTC put out 3.5 way to soon. If a new edtion comes out in 2006, 3 years after 3.5, I will not support it anymore. It will just show that WOTC is doing the "put out new edtion, and books when nothing new can be put out, put out newer rules set"