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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Veritas" data-source="post: 1786092" data-attributes="member: 24638">I've been thinking about the same kind of thing lately, since I've been collecting the 1st edition books again (specifically the old lizard idol cover PHB and the efreet cover DMG now), and I picked up a few of the different BD&D boxed sets earlier this year.I think 1st edition had more soul to it. I mentioned this in another discussion last night. BD&D and AD&D1e had soul. 2e lost some of that, and 3.Xe just seems rather soulless. Everything is too crisp, to clean... maybe it's that 1e and BD&D called for the DM to put more into it, since there weren't rules for every kind of action the players wanted to do... so the DM made adhoc rules and made stuff up more, making the game more personal.Now, something I specifically miss is the 1st edition Ranger... 2d8 for hit points starting hit dice, maxing out at 24 hit points at first level. That's a survivor. heh. Concentrating on archery and swordsmanship... fighting the good fight against "giant-class creatures". Ah, good times.The 3.5e ranger has started to approach the feel of the 1e ranger, but ever since 2e, I really haven't bothered with it. I have no idea what game designer pulled two-weapon fighting outa his rear, but he shoulda put it back. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> The only ranger that ever used two weapons was Drizzt, and he had that from being a drow, not from being a ranger.</blockquote>

Verification