Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="trancejeremy" data-source="post: 206152" data-attributes="member: 924">I didn't like 2E's skill system.  It was basically all or nothing, based on a character's attribute. That really really sucked, and was my main problem.I also didn't like the concept of 'kits'. IMHO, they were basically different sub-classes, but weren't balanced very well.Same with specialty priests. I liked the idea of them, but they weren't balanced*. I think 3E went a bit too far in the other direction, making Clerics too dull, but various clerical prestige classes fix that problem (especially for each god).I also didn't like how Priests had better attack progression than Thieves did.  Seems counterintuitive.  At least now they are the same.I also didn't like 2E's stat bonuses. Favored high attributes too heavily, made other ones meaningless. I always preferred the D&D version, which is quite close to 3E.I also didn't like what 2E did to Illusionists. That wasn't really fixed in 3E, but it can be.  Also to Monks and Assassins.  The 3E Monk is actually pretty cool, but I wish there were an Assassin base class (supposedly the Green Ronin Master Class series will have an assassin base class)*For instance, there was a Priest in Birthright that basically got the casting ability of a wizard of half his level. That's huge. Another one got thief abilities.</blockquote>