Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dice4Hire" data-source="post: 5463875" data-attributes="member: 55066">I voted 3E.To me, 2E was a mess of a system, with lots of odd rules, and classes that brought their own rulesets into the game. Add in kits, and changes from the beginning to end of 2E, and you could hardly play a game of 2E without a half-hour discussion of house rules. With 3E, you had a solid rules set, that, though expanded upon endlessly, worked quite well as an SRD only game. And a whole lot of people played it that way. The skills were a godsend, spells were somewhat cleaned up, especially the casters themselves, feats were nice, and characters became both fluff and crunch customizable, something that even in 2E was hard to do crunch wise. Ti me 4E look different, but it is really very similar to 3E with the exception of spells. I know why WOTC did it, and maybe they went a bit far, but allowing people to play fighters again in high level games was worth it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dice4Hire, post: 5463875, member: 55066"] I voted 3E. To me, 2E was a mess of a system, with lots of odd rules, and classes that brought their own rulesets into the game. Add in kits, and changes from the beginning to end of 2E, and you could hardly play a game of 2E without a half-hour discussion of house rules. With 3E, you had a solid rules set, that, though expanded upon endlessly, worked quite well as an SRD only game. And a whole lot of people played it that way. The skills were a godsend, spells were somewhat cleaned up, especially the casters themselves, feats were nice, and characters became both fluff and crunch customizable, something that even in 2E was hard to do crunch wise. Ti me 4E look different, but it is really very similar to 3E with the exception of spells. I know why WOTC did it, and maybe they went a bit far, but allowing people to play fighters again in high level games was worth it. [/QUOTE]

Verification