Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Puggins" data-source="post: 7886232" data-attributes="member: 12386">2e chose to go the path of balancing the math of the game for gameplay situations, the same move that 4e went for (and the same move that angered a whole lot of 3e players, I have to add).In theory, it’s a bit absurd to think that a wizard has the same attack bonus with a dagger at 11th level (+15, I believe) as a fighter who doesn’t specialize with a dagger.In practice, you won’t encounter this weirdness- the fighter will be attacking with his specialized weapon, will be using a lot of supplemental feats and will be using a very high strength or dexterity score.  The wizard will be casting a spell and will likely never swing his dagger, ever.So the weirdness only matters to people that place value in underlying logic.  It’s like criticizing a film for shooting on a sound stage instead of on location, even though the movie winds up looking identical- not a perfect analogy, I know.I have to admit that I’m one of those people.  The math oddities bug the HECK out of me.  For me it makes it harder to envision the adventure taking place in a living, breathing world as opposed to a stage arranged specifically for that one session.I've only played one session of 2e, so I don't think I'm qualified to rate it yet.  But I have to say that the system itself doesn't excite me- that could change (drastically!) in the long run, but it's not a good sign.</blockquote>