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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="amerigoV" data-source="post: 5613935">Well, yes and no. Playing some 2e for the first time in about 15 years made me realize that 1e and 2e was actually built along the parameters the OP layed out. People played 1e and 2e for a long time that had these mixed styles because the system, while not optimized any style, allowed people to enjoy their style along with the other players. But certainly people to move on to other systems over time.Thats the 1e fighter to a T. Any time you got a player new to the game, you started them on a fighter. Simple mechanics and constantly involved in the action. And, all other classes share their main mechanic - roll a d20 to hit, roll other dice for damage. Roll a d20 to save. Basic, simple, and fun.You want to try something cool, the DM basically says "yes, no, or roll something to see if works"A rougher fit, but thief. They have their own ruleset for them to interact with the environment - an exploration player. This may not be what the OP means, but they thieves have a custom rule that is more expansive and that no one else copies (mechanically, anyway - there are a few spells). Its not playing chess, but using more creative approaches to finding things about the environment.Wizard/Cleric. Every spell is a subsystem and have a wide range of effects. Playing these classes effectively and in a variety of ways requires system mastery. It is playing chess to the fighter's checkers.A driver between 1/2e and 3e is the lack of unified mechanic between fighter, thief, and magic user. 3e has these items to a degree, but the unified mechanic and upping the thief to a striker blurs that line (and feats are fiddly when compared to 1e).  4e normalizes the classes (if you can play one, you can play them all) and relies on role as its distinction.</blockquote>

Verification