Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6159740" data-attributes="member: 6681948">For me, I liked the switch from 2e to 3e.  In 2e, how many Fighters would have a 16 or 17 STR?  Somehow, they all had an 18 (and far less than half rolled 01-50 on percentile dice...).  Because bonuses applied only on very high scores, we grew to believe everyone needed those very high scores.3e mae smaller gradations more meaningful.  A 2e character with a 17 STR, 16 INT, 15 WIS, 12 CON, 18 DEX and 16 CHA could get by in 3e with a 12 STR, 18 DEX, 10 CON, 14 INT, 12 WIS, 14 CHA - he received similar bonuses.He's still formidable to be sure, but his stats are much more granular, and seem more reasonable.  Characters don't need an 18 to be competitive (though we often persuade ourselves they do to eke out that extra bonus point)  In 2e, a 7 - 14 is all the same.  In 3e, that range generates considerable variation.There are three determiners of success, skill (ranks/level/class), Ability (stats) and Luck (d20). As the OP notes, 4e removed "skill" (level) from the system to a significant extent - I like the 3e balance between skill, native ability and luck better than that balance in prior or later editions.</blockquote>