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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GMforPowergamers" data-source="post: 6504375" data-attributes="member: 67338">in 2e (my first D&D experience) theif as above so I don't think I have to go over it againyou had fighters and palidens (almost never saw those in play) who where tough and up front combatants who were always in the front line... they could take more then there share of hits and had best AC and best to hit... 9/10th of the time they did the best damage over the course of the fight as wellyou had CLeric and Druid who were almost as tough as the fighter, and had spells... spells change the game it gives you WAY more in the way of variability... but both were mostly (not entirely) used to heal and buff... you had Ranger who was somewhere inbetween the fighter and the druid... with a little rogue thrown in... it was very weird. you had bard... it made the ranger look like it fit... it had wizard spells and theif attack but not the backstab... and less skills but more knowledge...then you had wizard... it was the worst AC, and HP, and often I saw ones that even at 4th or 5th level could be one shoted. they had few spells per day (no bonus spells form high Int) and buff spells with bad riders (haste) or attack spells that could back fire (Enveration) but once you got them going and to a highish level they started to change the whole game... both the most powerful/versitle class and the weakest/most railroad calss depending on the level...(Now I had Ninja, Barbarian, and Psion books to add but I'll skip that inless someone really feels those or chronomancer matter)in 3e ALOT changed...fighter's and Palidens took a bit of a cut in power, Rogues (not thieves anymore) lost out on being only skill users but gained ALOT of combat (sneak attack+uncanny dodge really made them a skimisher), the cleric got more variability and some up grades that really made them more versitle (never have to prep a healing spell), and Druids got OP... the wizard was weird, at the same time it gained more spells and new ways to cast them, and took away those draw backs... we then added the barbrain, monk and sorcerer...both 2e and 3e gave you a lot of customization (more so 3e) but at the end of the day both were made with the 4-5 man team in mind... a fighter a mage a cleric a thief and a 5th wheel.  Now could your fighter be a ranger in eaith...yup... could you go with just 5 wizards... yea. could you multi and duil class you betcha... but again the base line was one thing and you could change it to be another..so what did 4e look at... the 4-5 man party, the fighter the mage the cleri and the thief... and what did they bring to the table in and out of combat... lets look at combat the fighter stood up and fought in the front line, the thief (if he waded in at all) moved to get one big blow, the cleric healed and buffed, the wizard through spells... so they said "OK how do we break those down so multi classes can fit each one?" now if you think roles needed to be done better, I agree...especially if you just take phb1.If you think they were made up based on nothing that came before... I don't get how you came to that...</blockquote>

Verification