Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 4480273" data-attributes="member: 5100">1e and 2e were very compatible, but 2e had kits (my dislike for them is probably unusual), TWF rangers, arquebus in the RAW, illusionists were a subset of mage instead of a completely separate class with unique spells, botched druid class, non-weapon proficiencies (not a bad idea, just a bad implementation -- 4e skills are NWP done right), possibly the worst DMG ever, and several other issues.I could take the couple of good aspects (customizable thief skills, stealthy rangers) and port them into 1e with a single sentence.  Ditto for the settings, though I didn't care for many of them -- I won't touch FR, Planescape, or Spell Jammer.2e brings nothing significant of value that isn't part of or 99% compatible with 1e.  On the other hand, it has some real shortcomings, IMO.  If I'm going for nostalgia, I may as well pull out 1e.</blockquote>