Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9018189">This I 100% agree with. I am not saying every group played the same. But I am saying my experience in the 90s generally, and with 2E in particular, was leaning more into characterization (and optimization still being more widely frowned upon than it was in the 2000s). Sure, I am not talking about AD&D in general (though I would still say it's harder to min max AD&D than 3E). I am talking about the 2E era, which has some crucial differences. Again though these were all optional. If you open up all the options from Dragon magazine, of course you are going to find wonky combos. The difference is, during 3E the default assumption was much friendlier to players selection what ever options they wanted. In 2E, there were options but the expectation was they would be heavily vetted by the GM. And 2E had a much, much more restrictive multiclassing system. 3E opened up class dipping, had prestige classes, added in things like feats and it had a more potent skill system. These all allowed for a much more robust level of optimization. And if the GM couldn't keep up with the optimization, it made it very difficult to throw anything challenging at them. That wasn't nearly the same issue in 2E. Sure, and especially if you throw in later books like skills and powers, you can get some crazy stuff. But the overall mood of that time was different. You didn't have wish lists, you didn't have the crazy builds you can get in 3E. I think you could have built a community around it. But I also think it would have been more work, it wouldn't have been as effective, and you would have had to contend more with the GM not allowing options.</blockquote>

Verification