Help me get excited about 2nd Edition.

[Spatula]

I haven't read MotW. Sounds interesting though - what makes the Urban Ranger stand out from Yet Another Prestige Classes? It's not a prestige class?

That section of the DMG I pointed out talks about making changes to the basic classes in order to fit different concepts. The urban ranger is presented in MOTW as an example of this. It's a ranger adapted to urban rather than wilderness adventures via different class skills, different bonus feats, and a different spell list. It only makes very simple changes to the class, as you can see. FFG's alternate core classes in the Path books are a more extreme version of this idea - they take the basic classes and alter them in more substantial ways. In Path of Shadow (the rogue book), for example, there's a Con-Man class that doesn't get any sneak attack dice, or the Traps ability that normal rogues get at 1st level. Instead the class is heavily focused on the social skills aspect of the rogue.

It would be nice, though, to have the Bounty Hunter kit available from first level rather than 12th, if I wanted it.

Bounty hunter: Ranger or ranger multiclass, focused on tracking & sneaking, is possibly proficient in weapons like the net depending on whether or not you're interested in bringing them back alive. Again I ask, what more do you need?

 

[Kichwas]

Come on there has to be something.... most of us use to play and enjoy D&D well before this 3rd Edition thing appeared.

Not me.

I suppose it might be better than getting your teeth pulled... -IF- they were being pulled by hand involuntarily...

Otherwise well, if it was my group I'd just be glad for the free night to sit at home and work on my art and stories.

 

[barsoomcore]

For some character concepts which aren't really the kind of thing you wait a career to build up to, there's no need for such shackles if you introduced the speshul abilities in a balanced manner.

You mean some prestige classes are poorly designed? Gasp, shock, dismay. With this I have no argument.

You and your fellows don't pay much credence to archetypal identity attached to actually having a class that matches your role

My fellows? Who, exactly, are my fellows? What, do you think everyone who disagrees with you is allied in some secret conspiracy to discredit you? Look out guys, he's found us out!

Please. If you disagree with me, disagree with ME, not some non-existent fellowship.

If I decide my fighter's a bounty hunter as a character concept, whammo, that's what I consider him. It would be nice, though, to have the Bounty Hunter kit available from first level rather than 12th, if I wanted it. 2E does that, 3E doesn't, requiring you to follow the concept in other ways, such as feat selection.

So again, your problem is that you don't get to have the words "Bounty Hunter" to write in the "Class" box on your character sheet. Otherwise, you can accomplish the same thing using the mechanics.

And of course, you can always create a "Bounty Hunter" class, can't you? Or find one somewhere and use it. Now, I never played 2E so I don't really know what a "kit" is but I assume that it's basically an alternative class. Maybe if you can tell me what the unique features of a "kit" are we can get to what 3E actually fails to provide.

 

[Voneth]

Flame me if you like, but I was disappointed when it turned out that the Paladin was going to be a core class in 3e. Personaly, I thought it should have been a PrC.

 

[Victim]

A kit is essentially a way to adjust a character class.

Let's say we have a fighter. He could be a normal fighter. He could take the swashbuckler kit and get -2 AC when in light armor and a +2 bonus to reaction from the opposite sex. Or he could take the some other kit and get different benefits.

In each case, the fighter would usually lose some freedom in assigning proficiencies and have some roleplaying restrictions.

I don't really see the need for an official stamp of bounty hunter-dom or swashbuckler-hood.

 

[Larcen]

Ok, don't have time to read the whole thread right now, so forgive me if any of these have been mentioned. In no particular order, just as they come to mind:

1) The available races for PC didn't all look like various versions of Elves.

2) Elves were WAY cooler. Not the diagonal-eyed neutered wannabees they are now.

3) After comparing illustrations, not every monster in the 2E MM was on an extreme starvation diet. Back before 3E, monsters actually ate things. Wait, Xorn are actually eating more. They are the exception.

4) The PHB equipment lists didn't have silly pictures that looked nothing like what they were supposed to represent or just plain goofy (such as the "breastplate" illustration and others. )

5) The covers of the books actually made you want to play the game, not keep them "locked" up.

6) Halfings were, well, halfings. Who are these little tiny people running around 3E now? Oh wait, I remember, small elves.

7) No +34/+34/+29/+24 per round for a total damage potential of 200 points of damage...or more. My current 3E PC was consistently doing close to 20 points of damage per hit. At first level. With zero XPs. Without magic. As a cleric. Of a non-battle god.

8) Levels actually had to be earned....over time. A LONG period of time. Yes, that is a plus IMHO. I am still trying to understand how my current 8th level PC is still a 19 year old, not having aged a single year since he career started a mere few months ago. Back in the day, he would be middle-aged by now and looking like the the proper "lord", or "high priest", or what have you, should look. No acne.

9) No errata upon errata for the playtested (?) core books.

10) Lots and lots of good source material out there, mostly free.

11) Dwarves actually had a cool "anti-magic" niche to them. They were rarely magic using, but resistant because of it. Made them unique. Now Dwarven Wizards are everywhere and dwarves are just stocky elves.

12) Racial level limits. You heard me right. There is a whole world out there that has a history before the PCs arrived on it. Explain to me why a race that lives hundreds or even thousands of years doesn't have members walking around that are 90th level or more? At least the 1E/2E exponential XP charts and level limits helped to explain this somewhat.

13) No smack-downs. Especially the "barrel full of slugs" type.

There are more of course, but I'll stop at lucky 13 for now....it's getting late and I need to stop rambling. But let me say in all honestly that even with all the above I WOULD STILL NOT want to give up 3E. 3E is still a way better system overall. So let me just close by saying it weren't for 2E's mistakes, we wouldn't have 3E.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

7) No +34/+34/+29/+24 per round for a total damage potential of 200 points of damage...or more. My current 3E PC was consistently doing close to 20 points of damage per hit. At first level. With zero XPs. Without magic. As a cleric. Of a non-battle god.

I could do that in 2e. All I needed was a dwarven hammer, girdle of storm giant strength, and gauntlets of ogre power - which stacked with each other! Or take a moonaxe (1d12 dmg) and Grand Mastery, increasing it's dice size by one - to 1d20! Or I could specialize in shield and armor, getting an AC of around -1 at 1st-level,with a Dex of 14 (no bonuses).

8) Levels actually had to be earned....over time. A LONG period of time. Yes, that is a plus IMHO. I am still trying to understand how my current 8th level PC is still a 19 year old, not having aged a single year since he career started a mere few months ago. Back in the day, he would be middle-aged by now and looking like the the proper "lord", or "high priest", or what have you, should look. No acne.

I remember the weird unbalanced XP tables, especially the druid. The low XP for "thieves" implied that they sucked - which they did (IMO). Modules should have had XP requirements, rather than level suggestions.

9) No errata upon errata for the playtested (?) core books.

The question mark is right. I think some of the 2e stuff wasn't tested properly.

10) Lots and lots of good source material out there, mostly free.

Out where?

11) Dwarves actually had a cool "anti-magic" niche to them. They were rarely magic using, but resistant because of it. Made them unique. Now Dwarven Wizards are everywhere and dwarves are just stocky elves.

If you say so.

12) Racial level limits. You heard me right. There is a whole world out there that has a history before the PCs arrived on it. Explain to me why a race that lives hundreds or even thousands of years doesn't have members walking around that are 90th level or more? At least the 1E/2E exponential XP charts and level limits helped to explain this somewhat.

Those were so stupid! They could just cap elves at 20th-level. To see if I have this straight: elves were the best wizards. They taught magic to humans. Why couldn't elven wizards exceed 15th-level? Did they suddenly suffer "XP block"?

13) No smack-downs. Especially the "barrel full of slugs" type.

See point #7. I've seen characters do 17 attacks over 2 rounds with a longbow. I don't even want to know how he did it.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Hey, Psi...you spelled "Irresistible" wrong.

The best thing about 2E is the DM still has a role in adjudicating the results of actions. In the totalitarian world of 3E, there is a rule for every eventuality you will face in the game...and you will have a great time looking them up during play. Or else!

 

[aliensex]

The best thing about 2E is the DM still has a role in adjudicating the results of actions. In the totalitarian world of 3E, there is a rule for every eventuality you will face in the game...and you will have a great time looking them up during play. Or else!

Boy, was your group ever understanding. This kind of free form thing led to lots of really stupid arguments (sometimes long too) about what was possible, and whether you needed to roll for it or not.

The new 3E rules have made things go a lot faster for us (new more understanding group as well). Adding in the DC system and expanding skills, etc. makes things acutally easier for DMing I have found.

 

[WizarDru]

best thing about 2E is the DM still has a role in adjudicating the results of actions. In the totalitarian world of 3E, there is a rule for every eventuality you will face in the game...and you will have a great time looking them up during play. Or else!

I'm assuming you mean "or else" to translate into "Or else the DM will make a ruling, and we'll move on with the game"? 'Cuz I know that's what it means in mine. It's too bad 3E prevents DMs from creating house-rules, because those...oh, wait. It doesn't. Never mind.