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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadras" data-source="post: 6245085" data-attributes="member: 6688277">3e with all its structure, was much more open to abuse due to the numerous combinations/permutations of class, prestige class & feat mix that were available and along with the heavy rule-set it was overwhelming for the DM to keep track of everything, plan story and design encounters/monsters. So as players specialised in character design, DM could have a difficult time designing encounters that did not swing one way (usually in the way of the PCs) due to not catering for the all the unknown PC options and abilities.With 2e, choices were rather simple, everyone usually new the rules, everyone usually new the spells, sure there were racial and class handbooks but it is much easier to plan as a DM when the rules and all character options/limits were known. The classes and kits were not complex, not like 3e classes with prestige classes and feat trees. So gaming-balance for a DM was easier, simpler. I could be mistaken, but I believe that is what @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=85555" target="_blank">Bedrockgames</a> was describing when he was using the word 'balance'PS: The above explanation does not include Skills and Powers/Options books (I forget its name), I personally classify that book as very nichè and not the core 2e system.EDIT: I might not have been as clear as I should have - the point I'm trying to make is in 2e everyone (player & DM) knew the system and the few build options, we knew where the balancing errors were - they were easy to fix. In 3e the DM couldn't possibly know all the imbalances that could occur and when he thought he fixed one, another would crop up - it was a nightmare (for me at least).</blockquote>

Verification