Help me get excited about 2nd Edition.

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Or make each prestige class a particular order or school, with a name to match [which is how a lot of them work already].

So anyone can call themselves an assassin and be a professional killer...but the Order of the Silent Blade [the renamed Assassin prestige class] are a particular group.

And more than one alternate name could be applied, so that members of different groups could have similar abilities.

Even better

 

[Spatula]

In my opinon, the CR system is no substitute for good old fashioned DM'ing from experience, there's just too many variables from group to group to boil things down to a science.

You're right, it's not a substitute for experience. It's there to help beginner DMs who don't perhaps don't have the sense of what is and is not an appropriate challenge. Experienced DMs don't need CRs, don't need wealth guidelines, etc. and shouldn't use them. I know I could have used something like CRs when I first started DMing.

In fact, although I might get flamed for this, I'll admit that for my games, the CR system is just as much (if not more) a hindrance than a help. Now I know that people will say "Well if that's what you think, why don't you just ignore it?" And while part of me agrees, the other part of me says using the CR system is like staring at the sun during an eclipse - it doesn't matter that you know you shouldn't do it, when its right there in front of you, it draws your eyes like moths to a flame.

Uhhhm... okay. But really, why not just ignore it if you don't need it?

But, Bagpuss, since the people you're playing with insist on 2e, I'll have to agree with those that have said that the biggest thing to lok forward to is that you have a game going at all. Also, I did like the specialty priests much better than the 3e cleric. And although some may have been overpowered,

or underpowered, depending on which spheres and what other powers your cleric got. Anyone remember the Complete Priest's Handbook?

if anything that actually helped as it made it easier to convince someone to play the much needed priest.

And then you possibly run into the problem of having a priest that can't heal. In which case you're just a strange sort of mage that can wear armor.

The specialty priests and the spheres were a great idea but poorly implemented. I remember some extremely overpowered specialty priests in FR. While the 3E cleric is much more bland (but not as bland as the original cleric, at least), every cleric is capable of being the healer. Which is important to the class concept, I think.

 

[rounser]

I think what you're talking about is making up new classes. Which last time I checked, was not punishable by death.

Not exactly. A sort of fuzzy kit/prestige class hybrid which takes the advantages from both approaches. Ah, my point is, there has to be a better way than prestige classes, which threw the kit baby out with the badly implemented bathwater....they had some advantages which p-classes aren't replicating, IMO, and given that p-classes aren't being used for the purpose the designers intended, doesn't that suggest that they be replaced with something a bit more appropriate to what they're being used for in the myriad splatbooks (i.e. they're being used as pseudo-kits, which wasn't what they were designed for)?

 

[Remathilis]

TWF was broken in 2e, and you still were called "Mr. Ginsu" - not that the latter changed in 3.0e. Anyway, it wasn't the Tracking bonus that I disliked (that was cool) but the stupid -6 penalty to non-rangers. Why?!?!

The alignment restriction was also a bad idea. If you turned evil, you forgot how to track and fight with two weapons?

Quiet understandable. I just think you got more for your money with 2e rangers than with 3e ones, esp in comparison to fighters.

(Exceprtional strength) Broken.

Yea gods, I tried several times to remove it when I played. However, it was really one of the few selling points for warrior types. I much prefer the Basic D&D ability chart to either AD&D chart.

(Specialty Priest) True. Some were broken, but there's broken stuff in 3e as well.

Depended on the setting/rulesbook. Complete Priest Handbook: Too weak. Legends and Lore: Much nicer. Faiths and Avatars: Waaay too much.

That is incorrect. Please look at the specialist wizard in the 3e PHB. Hey look, illusionists can throw real Fireballs.

However, they got a save bonus (arcane defense), a save penalty (spell focus), a research bonus, and a learn spell bonus. This is akin to 2.5 free feats in 3e. The tradeoff was prechosen schools. This meant specialists had to be more resourceful than 3e ones do.

In 3e, you only have to buy a new book for ninjas and psionics.

True. However these 3e staples DO exist in 2e, they are just more... optional.

We are in fundamental agreement.

Planescape in my personal favorite TSR setting. Manual of the Planes comes close, but doesn't capture the wonder of the planes like PS did.

(Class archetypes) Maybe.

This wasn't a large selling point for myself, but some people like fighters to remain, fighters. Same with rangers, rogues, ect. There wasn't the "pick and choose " your level mentality that does exist in 3e.

2e rangers were still broken Mr. Ginsu's.

but they were still rangers, not two-weapon-fighting-rogues.

Hmmm... I've never played a 2e or 3e bard

Except for the lack of higher level bardsongs, 2e bards were better all around than 3e. You could be proficient in longsword AND longbow!

?

The vastly superior game prep tool that was the basis for Master Tools, except it got everthing RIGHT! Mappers, custom classes, PO support, everything a DM would need.

True.

This had more to do with the limited professions of elf and the lack of any racial traits for humans. In 3e, they lost both thier advantages.

Aren't there 3e books like this?

Granted, but these are huge and practically complete. Too bad they came at the end of 2e.

True, but you can convert them.

Most everything converted direct from 1e/2e to 3e is best scrapped and recreated in the same theme. Kits, great idea, poor execution, but as the prestige class vs. kit debate (happening in this thread shows), they had thier place in 2e.

Okay, but there wasn't Weapon Focus. 2e rogues were so very wimpy. Abilities like Weapon Finesse didn't exist, and how often did you get a backstab?

Weapon Focus did exist in Combat and Tactics/Skills and Powers, look under Weapon of Choice.

However, you are right, 2e thieves got jack for bonus's and were poor to play at higher level. Your best bet was to MC with thief, that way you'd be useful later too.

Okay...

matters a lot to a 10/10 wizard/cleric in 3e vs a 16/16 mage/cleric in 2e.

Save DCs didn't apply in 2e. Your Horrid Wilting spell only ever did half damage.

I dunno, saw lots of things fall to that spell. Either way, the other spells mentioned got seriously nerfed. (Find Trap, how I miss ye!)

Anyway, 2e didn't have a CR system, and how would the DM know if a +3 weapon was too much for their 15th-level PC? They didn't.

They had to have intuiton, common sense, and experience.


Granted, I'd rather play 3e any old day of the week, but remember, in the End, if you had fun, it doesn't matter if its 2e, 3e or Monopoly. Role-play your PC and have fun.

 

[Spatula]

rounser, take a look at pg 25 (I think) of your DMG. Or the Urban Ranger in Masters of the Wild. I recall a post from Ryan Dancey (IIRC) lamenting that Wizard's class books didn't do more things like the Urban Ranger, instead of being filled with Yet Another Prestige Class. And I kinda agree there (more options are always good). I also think they should have had more "class path" type stuff like there is towards the back of Sword & Fist, showing you what sort of feats and skills would be good choices for different character concepts. But S&F was the only WOTC splatbook to feature those.

Also check out Fantasy Flight Games' "Path of ..." series of classbooks, if you haven't already. They have alternate core classes that are basically variants of the regular classes, changed to fit particular character concepts (generally with more extreme changes than the urban ranger variant).

 

[rounser]

Or the Urban Ranger in Masters of the Wild. I recall a post from Ryan Dancey (IIRC) lamenting that Wizard's class books didn't do more things like the Urban Ranger, instead of being filled with Yet Another Prestige Class.

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?

 

[Olive]

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?

no, its sugestions on skill swaps etc to make the ranger class more suitable for urban adventuring.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

However, they got a save bonus (arcane defense), a save penalty (spell focus), a research bonus, and a learn spell bonus. This is akin to 2.5 free feats in 3e. The tradeoff was prechosen schools. This meant specialists had to be more resourceful than 3e ones do.

Hmmm... the Spell Focus was nice, the Arcane Defense wasn't that useful, I never saw the research bonus in action, the learn spell bonus is no longer needed (if you failed a roll to learn Fireball you never learned the spell.... ever! In 3e you pick your spell.)

As for being resourceful, remember how bad the illusion spells were in 2e? I would never play an illusionist as a direct result of that.

 

[barsoomcore]

Remember, in the End, if you had fun, it doesn't matter if its 2e, 3e or Monopoly. Role-play your PC and have fun.

Actually, in the End, it doesn't even matter if you had fun. The universe goes CRUNCH and that's it!

Just time for breakfast at Milliway's!

On the whole Urban Ranger idea -- that's kind of exactly how I'm imagining becoming a Swashbuckler without taking a prestige class. I just go around acquiring the attributes I think a Swashbuckler should have.

It seemed to me, rounser, that you were worried about not being an "official" Swashbuckler if you didn't take the prestige class that had "Swashbuckler" as its name. Or people sneering at you for pretending to be a class you weren't. Which is just a function of making something important that doesn't have to be.

 

[rounser]

It seemed to me, rounser, that you were worried about not being an "official" Swashbuckler if you didn't take the prestige class that had "Swashbuckler" as its name. Or people sneering at you for pretending to be a class you weren't. Which is just a function of making something important that doesn't have to be.

Again, not exactly. It's just a point of annoyance that if I did want to take that subclassy title and it's abilities, it won't be available for many a level. 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 and your fellows don't pay much credence to archetypal identity attached to actually having a class that matches your role (despite what it does for the game, see the link I pointed out a page back), and I don't take it to extremes either. 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.

See? Not an extremist. Just a niggling thing which I think could be improved.