Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Particle_Man" data-source="post: 5030800" data-attributes="member: 892">BXCM D&amp;D (or RC D&amp;D)Good: Simple yet complete.&nbsp; Nice combination.Bad: Not balanced.&nbsp; It really hurt to play the Thief.Ugly: OOP; Can't legally get pdfs of it.1st ed AD&amp;DGood: More class/race choices.&nbsp; More flavour (esp. in DMG, FF).&nbsp; Modrons!Bad: Supplements like UA not balanced (and the nerfing of half-elf begins with the opening up to PCs other demi-human clerics with higher level limits).&nbsp; Very harsh on Demi-humans that are not thieves.Ugly: Psionics rules were so random and could unbalance the party.2nd ed AD&amp;DGood: More evocative settings.&nbsp; A bard playable from level 1.&nbsp; Higher level limits for demi-humans.Bad: Too many supplements.&nbsp; Some kits were broken.&nbsp; Psionics were broken.Ugly: Players' option books added to the broken.3rd ed D&amp;DGood: More class/race choices with no level limits!&nbsp; Warlocks and other cool classes.&nbsp; The OGL meaning the core rules will never go OOP or be unavailable on-line.&nbsp; With 3.5 Psionics is finally balanced.&nbsp; 3rd party support.Bad: Complicated to DM, especially at high level.&nbsp; Broken combos exist.&nbsp; Ugly:&nbsp; Supplement bloat.4th ed D&amp;DGood: Great DM advice.&nbsp; Balance.&nbsp; New racial choices.Bad: Loss of some flavour.&nbsp; Erratta for balance covered with feat tax instead.Ugly: Hard to wing it without a grid and miniatures.&nbsp; Castles and CrusadesGood: No restiction on race/class choices, no level limits.&nbsp; Easy to DM.&nbsp; Has flavour.&nbsp; Classes are differentiated in feel and function.&nbsp; Easy to House Rule.&nbsp; Easy to adapt stuff form other incarnations of D&amp;D (especially early ones)Bad: Encumbrance rules.&nbsp; Pre-4th printing Barbarian rage.&nbsp; Dragons have to be &quot;put together&quot; (which goes against the &quot;grad and go&quot; aspect of most monsters in the game) rather than be &quot;ready to go&quot;.&nbsp; Ugly: 1st printing had awful layout problems.&nbsp; This has been resolved in later printings.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Particle_Man, post: 5030800, member: 892"] BXCM D&D (or RC D&D) Good: Simple yet complete. Nice combination. Bad: Not balanced. It really hurt to play the Thief. Ugly: OOP; Can't legally get pdfs of it. 1st ed AD&D Good: More class/race choices. More flavour (esp. in DMG, FF). Modrons! Bad: Supplements like UA not balanced (and the nerfing of half-elf begins with the opening up to PCs other demi-human clerics with higher level limits). Very harsh on Demi-humans that are not thieves. Ugly: Psionics rules were so random and could unbalance the party. 2nd ed AD&D Good: More evocative settings. A bard playable from level 1. Higher level limits for demi-humans. Bad: Too many supplements. Some kits were broken. Psionics were broken. Ugly: Players' option books added to the broken. 3rd ed D&D Good: More class/race choices with no level limits! Warlocks and other cool classes. The OGL meaning the core rules will never go OOP or be unavailable on-line. With 3.5 Psionics is finally balanced. 3rd party support. Bad: Complicated to DM, especially at high level. Broken combos exist. Ugly: Supplement bloat. 4th ed D&D Good: Great DM advice. Balance. New racial choices. Bad: Loss of some flavour. Erratta for balance covered with feat tax instead. Ugly: Hard to wing it without a grid and miniatures. Castles and Crusades Good: No restiction on race/class choices, no level limits. Easy to DM. Has flavour. Classes are differentiated in feel and function. Easy to House Rule. Easy to adapt stuff form other incarnations of D&D (especially early ones) Bad: Encumbrance rules. Pre-4th printing Barbarian rage. Dragons have to be "put together" (which goes against the "grad and go" aspect of most monsters in the game) rather than be "ready to go". Ugly: 1st printing had awful layout problems. This has been resolved in later printings. [/QUOTE]

Verification