NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 4593992" data-attributes="member: 3400">I liked 2e but there were some definite problems. The ranger redesign didn't make much sense for the game (though it made sense for cross-promotion with the books) and was much weaker than the paladin class, with which it shared the XP table. The 2e DMG was a much weaker and less useful tool compared to the 1e DMG.But for the most part, a lot of the rule changes were nice ideas or definite improvements. Surprise rules had gotten cumbersome with too many creatures/classes having non-standard dice or modifiers and needed to be cleaned up. Non-weapon proficiencies were a welcome addition. Customizable thief skills were fantastic. And specialty priests were an interesting idea but one that needed work, particularly with sphere access.But what really annoyed me at the time was TSR's attitudes. From squelching things on the internet to timidly pulling demons and devils off the table to spreading their resources too thin among campaign after campaign to developing other games of dubious quality, artistry, and popularity, the company management just didn't seem to be able to make good decisions for the good of the game. The decisions were intended to be for the good of the company, but it was almost like they were plundering AD&D more often than not rather than really trying to nurture it.Now, that's my take on things and I don't really expect everyone else's impression of TSR stewardship of the AD&D game match mine. But there it is.</blockquote>

Verification