Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9007555" data-attributes="member: 82106">I'll grant that, the thief, especially in 2e where the other non-casting classes mostly get stronger, fell miserably short. They did get the ability to at least have one or two good thief abilities instead of many useless ones, but something akin to uncanny dodge would have been HUGE. That and maybe some sort of specialization benefit with their chosen thief weapon. Still, in relative terms it would be a toss-up if they are better off in 3e, given how huge the gains casters make in that edition, and the fact that rogues don't even get good poison saves.In many ways core 2e is a reasonably tweaked 1e.I never really saw high level 3.x fighters. They may be potent in an absolute sense, but just too outclassed. As I say, 3e seems like it was written by some rather naive designers, or ones with very little AD&D experience. I recall just reading the game and being like "Nope! That is NOT going to work!" Its not like I'm a top game design genius, if I could see that it was pretty obvious to anyone looking with an unbiased eye.Yeah, I think 3e genuinely was aimed at making things more even. They probably thought the BAB and full attack rules, plus all the feats, was going to make fighters into an 'engine of destruction'! Well, you can do some destroying, but only until you fail a save... and if you can only move 5' every round, in a grid combat mobility focused system, nope, doesn't work. And armor is not that critical, etc. Wizard type casters could SO EASILY have been cut down a LOT too. I just never got why they added gimmes to casters. The whole druid thing is kinda just 'out there'.</blockquote>

Verification