Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="an_idol_mind" data-source="post: 5954963" data-attributes="member: 43749">I think it was mostly the culture of TSR at the time and not the actual rules that drew a lot of hatred.2nd edition cleaned up a lot of things that had been confusing or counter-intuitive in 1st edition. It added more customization of characters in the form of specialty priests and thieves who could assign their skills as needed. It smoothed out the combat system and did manage to straighten out what had become a pretty bloated AD&amp;D system (although by adding so many supplements right off the bat, it quickly became bloated as well).And honestly, while I think the whole demon/devil thing was stupid, it did force some creativity into the flavor of those creatures, which yielded some good results, especially when Planescape came into the picture.</blockquote>3.&nbsp; If 2e were used as the baseline for 5e, what would the end product look like?[/QUOTE]It kinda sounds to me like 5e is borrowing some of the concepts of 2e. Specifically, the idea of a modular rules system is very similar to 2nd edition. If you look through the core books, there are a ton of optional rules, ranging from exceeding level limits to designing custom classes to even critical hits and death from massive damage. I think 2nd edition had more optional rules in the core than any other edition - nicely labeled in blue columns as well, so they were easy to ignore if you didn't want to use them.The problem with 2nd edition's optional rules is that most supplements and adventures assumed the use of many of them, particularly the poorly-executed proficiency system. Thus those options became assumptions. 5th edition would do well to avoid that if possible.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="an_idol_mind, post: 5954963, member: 43749"] I think it was mostly the culture of TSR at the time and not the actual rules that drew a lot of hatred. 2nd edition cleaned up a lot of things that had been confusing or counter-intuitive in 1st edition. It added more customization of characters in the form of specialty priests and thieves who could assign their skills as needed. It smoothed out the combat system and did manage to straighten out what had become a pretty bloated AD&D system (although by adding so many supplements right off the bat, it quickly became bloated as well). And honestly, while I think the whole demon/devil thing was stupid, it did force some creativity into the flavor of those creatures, which yielded some good results, especially when Planescape came into the picture. [/quote]3. If 2e were used as the baseline for 5e, what would the end product look like?[/QUOTE] It kinda sounds to me like 5e is borrowing some of the concepts of 2e. Specifically, the idea of a modular rules system is very similar to 2nd edition. If you look through the core books, there are a ton of optional rules, ranging from exceeding level limits to designing custom classes to even critical hits and death from massive damage. I think 2nd edition had more optional rules in the core than any other edition - nicely labeled in blue columns as well, so they were easy to ignore if you didn't want to use them. The problem with 2nd edition's optional rules is that most supplements and adventures assumed the use of many of them, particularly the poorly-executed proficiency system. Thus those options became assumptions. 5th edition would do well to avoid that if possible. [/QUOTE]

Verification