Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 6245176">I don't want to open up this debate again, as I have had it more than a few times, but yes I think the issue was you had simpler choices and everyone knew what the broken choices were. And though the complete books had a few instances of brokeness, the vast majority of kits just gave you NWPs, and circumstacial bonuses, i didn't see as many of the broken comboes you got with 3E complete books and class dipping. I think kits were also less of an issue simply becaue you layered them onto an existing class. Don't get me wrong, i like 3E, but i have encountered very few people who had fewer balance issues in 3E than in 2E (obviously ignoring material like skills and powers). That said, there were optional rules available in some of the books that could disrupt things. It wasn't a perfect edition. I just neter had the power builds in 2E that i had in 3E (your min-max options were fairly limited). Also relying on 18/00 strength for a build is not a good strategy in 2E. First you need to roll the 18 and thef you have to get the 00. No an easy thing to achieve. Even dual wielding was pretty prohbitive. You could do it, and after drizzt lots did. But again, that was a known area of the game GMs would often rule against. There were such a small number of these, it was quite easy for a group to manage. I found with 3E the overpowered mechanics or combos surprised you.</blockquote>