........ I......... what did I just............ Is he serious? @Resident Kyantol. . . . . . . . . what? I have played or currently play all editions of dnd. ALL of them. od&d. d&d basic.(thats the red box) d&d advanced(the blue box) AD&D first edition, AD&D second edition, dnd 3rd edition, dnd 3.5 edition, and 4th. 4th is the worst. granted, its a decent system but its NOT d&d. its the wrong 'flavour' entirely. nuff said there, not looking to start an argument. as to 2nd being the most flexible, I'm confused. the only flexibility in 2nd is if you deign to use the players option series, which are, to be honest, unbalanced and the closest you can get to 3rd ed you can get without actually playing 3rd. Otherwise its pretty much just a streamlined version of the editions before it, with expanded rules. as every edition of D&D has been up to 3rd. 3rd was a big change, where a heavy focus on defence shifted to a more active offensive style of play - big bonuses to chances to hit, making for more 'dynamic' fight scenes, but in reality just as tedious because the focus from attempting to hit your target shifted more to calculating damage and seeing how quickly you could kill something big before it turned on your mage/thief/cleric and pasted them, because that's what big monsters do. they hit. All the time. hard not to with a +14 to hit. back before 3rd, the fights were far more dangerous and scary. a band of goblins were not 'warm up material'. they were a god-awful threat to everyone below 3rd level, swarming and picking off the weaker members of your party at 1st level while your fighter and cleric frantically tried to fend them off, the wizard desperately trying to hit as many of them with his one spell before they took him down, and the rogue doing his best to defend the holes that the cleric and the fighter couldn't cover in whatever defensive line they were trying to hold them on. (usually one dictated by the spell selection of the wizard). in fact, most of the time the fight ended not with the party killing the offending goblins, but in more of a draw, where the goblins would cut their losses and back off due to a failed morale check, thereby allowing the party to lick its wounds and attempt to find somewhere else to be when the goblins return with more friends for revenge. a Party of 1st level adventurers would consider that a win right there. in 3rd, that same party would probably consider a fight gone that badly (one that didn't kill the same goblins in the first 3 rounds) a failure. with all the bonuses to attack and damage that are just thrown in there, 3rd ed fights really are more about hitting until they run out of HP rather than surviving by not being hit. Please note, I point out the difference as I see it so you know i'm not just hating on either edition. I like both, but I am aware of the big differences between them. I enjoy both games, and currently DM exclusively in 3rd, apart from a few one shots or random dungeons I put in for laughs when I feel like it. I am unable to see that 3rd is 'unplayable' without of all things, the tome of battle - and psionics! tome of battle is a poor attempt to bring in a fourth edition feel to 3rd edition, and is really unbalanced and in my opinion poorly executed. Psionics are, I admit, far easier to manage than their 2nd ed version, but they are mechanically no different to magic in 3rd. why cut out full casters, then allow Psionics? I don't see the logic there. As far as I can tell, you are saying do not allow mages, clerics, druids or sorcerers, but put Psions in the game because thats balanced. To each his own. Pathfinder isnt dnd. not including that here. don't get me wrong, I own or have owned just about all the books for both editions (2nd and 3rd) at least all the 'core' ones. in 2nd: the complete series, players option, the various monstrous manuals, unearthed, oriental, and so on... somewhere I even have a folder filled with all the monster sheets that came out in ring binder format god knows when (actually, those I picked up from a friend who had to get rid of stuff to make more room for other stuff. They were cool anyway) for 3rd? well, lets just say all of them. I'm hard-pressed to think of one I don't have in my collection right now. though I am not sure if they ever did bring out a 3rd ed spelljammer or not....... If they did, then its probably the one I don't own. I use a plethora of optional rules in every edition. I am all about modifying a game to make it suit your style. but I believe that I have a firm understanding of the rules for each edition before 4th and I have no problem, as a player or as a DM, and have no trouble making them work regardless of the optional or expanded set of rules available. ok, bored now and my clock tells me its past midnight. going to bed :P edit: just like to shout out that 1st edition and 2nd edition are essentially the same thing, in terms of playability, the difference being a few minor rules clarifications and the fact that 2nd edition has skills, and a LOT of 'addons'.
