D&D 4th ed

[Augustus]

Some of my players are power-gamers and I thoroughly agree that 3.blank editions are very prestige class orientated and combative. This is why I was so happy to "discover" Ravenloft. The Demiplane of Dread chews up those who do not think. Hell some of my players even failed a few powers checks because of their ignorance of consequences. But they eventually learned how to RP and think.

[Charney]

I jsut wanted to say I wholeheartedly agree with David's post. He really summed up how i feel about 2ED VS 3ED. I do hope 3.5 still has a few good years in front of it.

[Jester of the FoS]

You definatley have many good points, and I definatley like the versitility of leveling up in 3rd edition, at least you are not penalized for changing classes anymore.[/i]

I really think 3rd Edition is the better game system. Rules wise. But I encourage players to play whatever it is they enjoy more because, really, having fun is what the hobbey is about.

Now that I think about it, the problems in 2E are really what drove people to 3/3., they liked D&D but couldn't handle their Fighter never being more than a every other fighter (except for whatever loot they picked up, that seperated the classes, which might lead to monty haul-ing and emphasis on the loot).
I don't think enough time and playing has passed for the flaws in 3E to really show yet, and WotC hasn't pushed the feel of the setting too far into silliness yet for people to want to shake things up. I know WotC is trying to break free from the traditional fantasy and shake things up but they are going a tad too far.

[alhoon]

I definatley give 2nd a home field advantage though. It always feels more familiar, were 3rd never really took with me. It always felt too out there. Mybe it just seemed too High Fantasy for a basic rule set. Sadly enough i thought it took alot of imagination away from the players. One thinhg I always appreciated in 2nd edition, was coming up with new idea's. Now new idea's are published every month, and the creativity just wanes from me.
I guess that is a personal problem. But that is one of the many reasons I stick to second. Maybe it is the feeling of an incomplete game that allows me to thrive creativley.

You have a point there, but letting so much to the DM to rule was more of a problem sometimes. What of the stupid rules?
"A hill giant character gets +8 hp" So my 2nd level Hill giant fighter has as many hp as a 3rd level fighter. House rule that out.

"So DM I would like to play a vampire wizard 12th level"
"OK, well you'll . . . mmm have the combat abilities of a 9HD vampire (hp, AC, thac0) but you'll have spellcasting abilities of a 12th level wizard. When you go up in level, you'll only get spellcasting abilities"

"Woohoo! I have rolled a natural 17 for strength! I have a +1/+1 bonus!"
"Put that to constitution you idiot! You'll get a +3!"
"But with 14 str I don't get anything!"
"Put that to charisma, you get a bonus there."


And so on

[Big Bad Jack]

2nd.. no. "Cookie cutter" is exactly it. Kits helped, but the system was labyrinthine and awkward, and ultimately, gear made the man.

Whereas with Third, you can actually make your Fighter different than every other Fighter WITHOUT a single scrap of equipment.

I personally MUCH prefer skill-based systems over clas-based (White Wolf's two editions of Storyteller and Guardians of Order's Tri-Stat being my two favorites), and I am ANYTHING but a combat player, but even I enjoy tactical combat and small-squad strategy in a fight. 2nd Edition strategy was lacking, to my opinion.. fighter hits, cleric heals, wizard heals, rogue sneaks. Now, Third is much more option-filled and possesses character customization enough to make a class-based system usable to me.