Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 6863304" data-attributes="member: 8863">Probably I miss the settings the most.The last campaign I ran was 2e; the biggest problem I'd developed with 3.x was the whole 3.0/3.5 split which changed a whol,e bunch of things, sometimes apparently arbitrarily and in a way that had lots of little incompatible details.&nbsp; I went back to 2e because of my extensive library, and because I was DMing for new players and only had a decent amount of published modules for 2e.&nbsp; It didn't take long to remind me of why I gladly switched from 2e to 3e.&nbsp; 2e had a lot of good ideas, but there's a lot of stuff that is vague or poorly described, and because of the whole design philosophy of keeping things reasonably compatible with 1e, there's many things that work clunky together because they were bolted onto the system in a haphazard fashion.&nbsp; 3e has much more internal consistency and clearly defines things, but it does lose a bit of flavor the classic stuff had.&nbsp; Still, there can be some really serious power variations in 2e material; for example compare a specialty priest from the Priest's Handbook to one from Faiths and Avatars.&nbsp; Or just how spells or magic items can wildly vary; I've got a complete set of the Encyclopedia Magica and the 2 Spell Compendiums and stuff from those volumes is just all over the place.&nbsp; I could do the work to house rule 2e, but in the end just using a base of 3e and deciding what options I want to allow is quicker and more convenient.Haven't done much of 5e, but on the surface it feels like the standardization of 3e with fewer options all over the place clogging things up.&nbsp; It's okay, but it feels too rigid for my taste.&nbsp; I'll play the game, but I'd rather run core 3e and deciding what options I want to make available to the players.So yeah, there's a wealth of creativity in the classic stuff that really peaked in the 2e days, but it's hurt by the lack of balance and consistency.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Orius, post: 6863304, member: 8863"] Probably I miss the settings the most. The last campaign I ran was 2e; the biggest problem I'd developed with 3.x was the whole 3.0/3.5 split which changed a whol,e bunch of things, sometimes apparently arbitrarily and in a way that had lots of little incompatible details. I went back to 2e because of my extensive library, and because I was DMing for new players and only had a decent amount of published modules for 2e. It didn't take long to remind me of why I gladly switched from 2e to 3e. 2e had a lot of good ideas, but there's a lot of stuff that is vague or poorly described, and because of the whole design philosophy of keeping things reasonably compatible with 1e, there's many things that work clunky together because they were bolted onto the system in a haphazard fashion. 3e has much more internal consistency and clearly defines things, but it does lose a bit of flavor the classic stuff had. Still, there can be some really serious power variations in 2e material; for example compare a specialty priest from the Priest's Handbook to one from Faiths and Avatars. Or just how spells or magic items can wildly vary; I've got a complete set of the Encyclopedia Magica and the 2 Spell Compendiums and stuff from those volumes is just all over the place. I could do the work to house rule 2e, but in the end just using a base of 3e and deciding what options I want to allow is quicker and more convenient. Haven't done much of 5e, but on the surface it feels like the standardization of 3e with fewer options all over the place clogging things up. It's okay, but it feels too rigid for my taste. I'll play the game, but I'd rather run core 3e and deciding what options I want to make available to the players. So yeah, there's a wealth of creativity in the classic stuff that really peaked in the 2e days, but it's hurt by the lack of balance and consistency. [/QUOTE]

Verification