Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rabindranath72" data-source="post: 9486632" data-attributes="member: 34007">It goes without saying I can have any opinion I want <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> and generally I couldn't care less about others' opinions (including Gygax's).That said, and just for context, I started with BECMI, then moved to AD&D2e in 1989, played till 2003, then learned 1e; 2e is the edition that I played consistently longer than any other edition. So it's not that I don't know how 2e works, or don't like it. I just happen to find the way 1e treated fighters to be more satisfying. They are not 'broken'; they are just different. Keep in mind that in 1e you can move and attack in the same round only if you charge (which brings a penalty to AC), to the contrary of 2e. And to charge and attack a spellcaster you must be close enough that the time it takes to reach and attack must be smaller than the casting time, so typically a spellcaster would be pressed to use fast spells or magic items. 2e tends to make the life of spellcasters easier, which is something I don't like in general. YMMV and all that jazz.</blockquote>