REALLY What Was So Bad About 2nd Edition?

[ColonelHardisson]

I do want to make clear that most examples of 3e being either imperfect (which it is, of course) or broken, that I have seen, have been directly to do with min/maxing by players. This is not an indication of the system being broken. It's like criticizing a car for being too fast - my contention is that you can drive a car as fast as it will go, but that doesn't mean you should. The car can handle the abuse the driver throws at it until there's a wreck. Now, there are certainly cars that are flawed, so that they break down or blow up under certain conditions. To extend the analogy back to RPGs, I don't think 3e is one of the latter; it seems more troubled by the way it is "driven" rather than having some fatal inherent flaw.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'll say it again, if you can buy feats like you can buy spells, I wouldn't be complaining.

Well, since the core books and most of the various supplements have items that provide access to various feats, you almost certainly can buy feats. I refer you to the Mighty Cleaving weapon enhancement (grants access to and enhanced Cleave ability), the Keen enhancement (essentially grants access to Improved Critical), the Battle Bridle (from FRCS, gives access to mounted feats), the Distance enhancement (essentially grants the Far Shot feat), and so on. Check Magic of Faerun for a whole pile of feat granting magic items (such as the Bracers of the Balanced Hands) as well as the various splatbooks.

I want to have variety Psion, I want it to be a hard choice whenever I get a new feat. I want a good reason to consider taking Toughness.

Do you want to qualify for the PrCs that have it as a prerequisite? Do you want to take a feat that has it as a prerequisite (there are a few, Remain Conscious from S&F is one I think). Those are good reasons.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I do want to make clear that most examples of 3e being either imperfect (which it is, of course) or broken, that I have seen, have been directly to do with min/maxing by players. ...To extend the analogy back to RPGs, I don't think 3e is one of the latter; it seems more troubled by the way it is "driven" rather than having some fatal inherent flaw.

Very few products, systems, or applications survive a "malicious user". Complex ones never do.

An extreme minmaxer could be called a kind of malicious user.

1e/2e, OTOH, sometimes fell apart when used by an innocent user. Even a die hard roleplayer can get frustrated when his heroic human fighter gets upstaged time after time after time after time by the fighter/XXX Elf.

I call it the Landmine Problem. Some games are accidentally booby trapped so that they will inevitably blow up on the GM and players. Good GMs can usually bandaid over the problem, but it is a symptom of poor design to force the GM to do so.

3e actually survives a little malicious use pretty well. 2e did not. Most RPGs do not.

 

[Psion]

Um, 7th, PC has warned us to cool it, so I'll make this brief.

That was in answer to ColonelHardisson's claim of not seeing any explanation of this before that isn't linked to min/maxing. Apparently he thinks my arguments are linked to min/maxing as well. So in short, I wasn't talking to you

Just because you weren't talking to me doesn't mean I can't take exception to what you were saying. This is a public forum and all.

My comments weren't just about balance, but simply things I feel that are wrong with the game.

Fair enough, but I might point out that one's personal take on what a class "should be" is pretty much that, a personal take.

As for me, I tweak the ranger to, but not to provide more power... but to provide more options. Like Rokugan, I let rangers trade spellcasting levels for feats.

That said, I see nothing wrong with the concept of a spellcasting ranger. In D&D spells are used to represent more that magical incantations. A number of magical effects get codified as spells. And the types of capabilities granted by the rangers spell lists... like speaking to animals and making friends with them... is perfectly appropriate for rangers.

Then you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle now do you? Get informed =P

Well I ordered it, but someone sent me Faiths & Pantheons instead...

[/B] Here is where I think you are totally wrong. Options do mean power because it allows for greater versatility, even if there is a sacrifice involved.[/b]

It's not versatility unless they are options to your specific character. And as the number of spells you can learn overall or use in a day have not changed, then the net effect of versatility is slim, if any.

Your comments seem to imply you think spells are balanced with skills and feats. So you tell me.

I think different characters have different roles, and a wizard is never going to replace a rogue. Sure, they might get a spell that lets them trump one rogue's ability, but that does not make the rogue defunct. Okay, so the wizard can now fly and (say) get to a precipice with greater ease than a rogue can. Can he search and disarm traps better when he gets there?

You make comments like "You have quite obviously never played a high level game"

That is the only conclusion that I can come to if you don't realize how easily a high level party can tip a wizard back on his heels.

What did I decide about that situation other than what a wizard character would do during combat and normally cast on him self every few days?

Well first off, a wizard only has a limited selection of spells and those spells are only going to be loaded for combat if the wizard is expecting combat. Wizards who are making items will have spells ready to make items. Wizards who are involved in a plot to dominate the king's servants and scry on the king will have scrying and enchantment spells ready. Short answer: use logic and don't metagame.

More generally, my comment was saying that "single combat" is not the sole test of power of a class.

That's not the point. You need another spellcaster for that.

So?
1) D&D is built around the assumption of a 4 person party. The "single combat" theory does not stand up because the single combat theory is not representative of the way people game.
2) D&D also relies on magic items as part of the balance. Were it not so, I would agree with you wholeheartidly that a wizard kicks the snot out of any other class. But there is a very good chance indeed that a non-spellcaster could have a magic item to crimp the wizard's style.

I'll say it again, if you can buy feats like you can buy spells, I wouldn't be complaining.

And I'll say it again: feats and spells are not equivalent. Spells use temporary resources, and once expended, are gone.

One word: scrolls.

Scrolls also use resources, as in XP, which is not so easily surrendered as you suggest. And as I have already said, spells are convenient (I think intentionally so) at low levels, but the cost escelates RAPIDLY as the spell and caster levels increase.

Are you or are you not advocating that underpowered feats and spells like Toughness and Shocking Grasp should stay as they are because people don't have to choose them? That is the argument I am bashing, because it is counterproductive to having a continually improving, balanced game.

You can bash it all you want. The fact is for some characters, toughness IS a productive feat. It doesn't have to be a productive feat for your particular character to be justified in the game.

I want to have variety Psion, I want it to be a hard choice whenever I get a new feat. I want a good reason to consider taking Toughness.

But you dismiss it being used as a prerequisite?

Of course DM judgement is required, but doesn't it seem like the CR system has room for improvement

Are you trying to get me to just repeat myself?

I agree it has room for improvement, and never said otherwise. I also said Dragons CRs are at the very least wrong. But I also think you have expectations of the system that aren't realistic. It is never going to compensate for the exact circumstances of the encoutner or the party preparedness or tactics.

I do agree that the Monte Cook ranger is over powerful. But then he was one of your vaunted designers, wasn't he?

I have no "vaunted" designers per se. I like his writing, but he isn't perfect. I have always criticised his alt.ranger, I only gave "Queen of Lies" a 3, and were I to write a review of BoEM II, it would probably also be a "3".

But that's not what I was talking about. I am talking about the FAN alt.rangers. I have yet to see one I consider appropriate.

 

[Uller]

Yes, I have played a high level game. Have you ever thought about how to play a wizard? Any wizard worth his salt is going to cast Haste, Fly, and be 90 ft in the air on the first round, in addition to having contingency + stoneskin active at all times.

At which point the baddy casts Greater Dispel and the wizard drops to the ground where he is promptly killed by the scads of fodder monsters that ran right below him.

Wizards are not as overpowered as you think. Learning new spells has a rather sever cost. You must find or buy a scroll of the desired spell and it costs 200gp per spell level to scibe. Plus your spell book can only have 50 levels of spells in it. Not to mention that spell books can be lost, stolen, destroyed, etc.

Anyway...this was doomed to become a debate on the merits of 3e. I understand that you are sort of playing devil's advocate here(since you play 3e and hang out at a 3e dedicated sight). 3e is not perfect(for many of the reasons you've stated). But I've not run into nearly as many problems as I did with 2e and 1e(most of which have been mentioned already).

I think the core classes are fine as they are(even the Ranger) and I don't mind "useless" feats in spells in the PHB any more than I mind useless or uninteresting monsters in the MM or inapplicable rules variants in the DMG.

I've acually used the Toughness feat to some effect...Hate having fodder monsters who die on a single hit from the party fighter? Toughness is often enough to make the difference!

 

[Piratecat]

7thlvlDM, Psion, I'll say this one last time: please bring the thread back on topic. The topic is not "Two interesting people quote each other to death about 3e balance." The topic IS "What was bad about 2nd edition."

If you guys want to continue your debate, please take it to another thread or to email, but this thread isn't the place for it.

 

[Kichwas]

My group had great fun with 1e, then even more fun with 2e, and EVEN MORE fun with 2.5 (Skills & Powers), culminating in the MOST FUN YET with 3e. Each edition has gotten better and better, IMO.

You;d better be careful with 4E when it comes out then. You might just have one of them 'joy attacks' and fall over dead.


For me: I really didn't like all the inconsistant rules of 1E or 2E. Nor the limits of classes and levels. Nor the magic system. Nor alignments. Nor the combat system. Nor the random stats.

There really isn't anything I did enjoy in either of those two systems. WHich is why I left DnD behind as a DM in 83, and as a player in 85. Looking back only long enough to buy the books for 2E and quickly shelve them.

Spent the time between then and August 2000 playing other games. Mostly Champions and GURPS, later moving to SHadowrun, BESM and trying to get Everway going...

Plus a hoard of other games here and there.

I only bothered to look at 3E in order to get arguments for a debate with people I knew that it was still a game I would find unplayable.

But I changed my mind after looking through it.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I've always found we have some of the best times just rolling the stats for PC's. Random rules!

 

[Doc_Subtlety]

I actually liked 1E quite a bit. I ran it sporadically right up until 3E came out, because it was a beer & pretzels sort of affair: don't take it too seriously, just run around and cause havoc.

(Of course, I patched it a bit: point buy stats, no psionics, etc. - but nothing too major.)

2E rubbed me the wrong way because it added gobs of unnecessary complexity to that formula: proficiencies, tons of optional rules, Player's Options, Complete Handbooks...I felt it ruined the feel of the game, instead of making it more playable.

(I might have if I'd seen Planescape back then, but it's not too late to use 3E for that, so no big deal.)

I like 3E better because I can actually run a D&D campaign with it, without losing the beer & pretzels option.

 

[Piratecat]

Plus a hoard of other games here and there.

This is the only time I've *ever* seen horde and hoard actually qualify as synonyms! At first I thought it was a typo, and then i thought about my own game shelves....