Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 6252431" data-attributes="member: 85555">It depended on the level and class, but generally i believe you could be 1-4 levels behind i believe. A thief who has 10th level straight for example has something like thief 7, and wizard 8. I do think there were issues with multiclassing in 2E (though you didn't have class dipping problems like 3E), but it isn't as bad as you make it out to be here in my opinion. And there are still the level caps. I do agree third editino you saw more varied characters mechanically. The strength of 3e was its customizeability. But i also think that was a source of much of its imbalance. My point was never that third edition isn't good or that it is totally broken, just that it presented more challenge issues for me than 2E. My original statement on this subject was i felt in terms of balance, 2E was closer to what i prefer, 3E had potential issues, and 4e was too balanced for my taste. That said i don't deny 2E could be improved, though given you are a fan of the 4e design approach and i am not, i have a ling we would disagree on how best to improve 2E (one think i know i would do is only allow two weapon fighting for rangers, and take out the expansion of specialization to paladins and rangers in the complete boook).&nbsp; Would also make the two weapon fighting penalty much harder to eliminate. Because the penalty does serve as a balancer when it is actually in place. The problem was stuff like ambidexterity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 6252431, member: 85555"] It depended on the level and class, but generally i believe you could be 1-4 levels behind i believe. A thief who has 10th level straight for example has something like thief 7, and wizard 8. I do think there were issues with multiclassing in 2E (though you didn't have class dipping problems like 3E), but it isn't as bad as you make it out to be here in my opinion. And there are still the level caps. I do agree third editino you saw more varied characters mechanically. The strength of 3e was its customizeability. But i also think that was a source of much of its imbalance. My point was never that third edition isn't good or that it is totally broken, just that it presented more challenge issues for me than 2E. My original statement on this subject was i felt in terms of balance, 2E was closer to what i prefer, 3E had potential issues, and 4e was too balanced for my taste. That said i don't deny 2E could be improved, though given you are a fan of the 4e design approach and i am not, i have a ling we would disagree on how best to improve 2E (one think i know i would do is only allow two weapon fighting for rangers, and take out the expansion of specialization to paladins and rangers in the complete boook). Would also make the two weapon fighting penalty much harder to eliminate. Because the penalty does serve as a balancer when it is actually in place. The problem was stuff like ambidexterity. [/QUOTE]

Verification