Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7752859" data-attributes="member: 996">It's OK, I was just bringing in a historical perspective.&nbsp; Kits were, by the standards of TSR era D&amp;D, something of an innovation, but they were all over the map.&nbsp; Later build mechanics - backgrounds, themes, feats, archetypes, etc - often were a bit like Kits, because kits were so varied in what they tried to do.&nbsp;Yeah, I gave up on 2e about half way through the run, and don't have nearly all the books, so I wouldn't go digging around in it like I sometimes do 1e.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The inconsistency among the early Complete Books that I do have, though, was striking.&nbsp; Complete Fighter seemed kinda 'meh,' until Complete Theif came out and was just... IDK, 'why did you even bother?'&nbsp; While Complete Wizard had some comparatively OP stuff.&nbsp; And, in stark contrast, Complete Priest had some great stuff that almost didn't seem to come from the same game.&nbsp; (And Complete Elves I know only by reputation.)&nbsp;2e wasn't any worse than 1e, that way, and it at least had the excuse of more different folks writing for it.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7752859, member: 996"] It's OK, I was just bringing in a historical perspective. Kits were, by the standards of TSR era D&D, something of an innovation, but they were all over the map. Later build mechanics - backgrounds, themes, feats, archetypes, etc - often were a bit like Kits, because kits were so varied in what they tried to do. Yeah, I gave up on 2e about half way through the run, and don't have nearly all the books, so I wouldn't go digging around in it like I sometimes do 1e. ;) The inconsistency among the early Complete Books that I do have, though, was striking. Complete Fighter seemed kinda 'meh,' until Complete Theif came out and was just... IDK, 'why did you even bother?' While Complete Wizard had some comparatively OP stuff. And, in stark contrast, Complete Priest had some great stuff that almost didn't seem to come from the same game. (And Complete Elves I know only by reputation.) 2e wasn't any worse than 1e, that way, and it at least had the excuse of more different folks writing for it. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification