«

[Havell]

Version 3.5 is my favourite becuase of the feats and prestige classes. Mostly the feats, they rule.

[Nick]

Originally posted by punch@Dec 28 2005, 04:09 PM
I still prefer version 2.0 though it has so many choices and isn't as limiting as ver 3.0 and 3.5

Well, while I was reading Player's Handbook for AD&D 2, I gained an opinion, that most of the rules can be modified by Game Master.

[Nick]

Originally posted by Eva02Soul@Dec 28 2005, 11:55 AM
20+ isn't impossible. You apply stats modifiers and attack bonuses to your rolls, plus the BAB for your class. 20 can end up being considered quite low for an AC

I meant, if you have to roll more than 20 to hit. If you have armour class -10 and attacker has THAC0 12.

[Galadrin]

Yes, a natural 20 is still considered an automatic hit (though a GM can rule that a natural is a 30, and a natural 1 a -10... or anything else for that matter). And as much as I love monks, in 3.5 especially the Barbarian is the most overpowering class. Raging power attack with a two handed weapon is a horrific sight considering you double the power attack damage.

[Tulac]

2nd edition is much better for pen&paper while the 3rd and 3.5 editions are better for computer games. The point in 3rd edition is that you can roll for everything, and there's very little need of any roleplaying, it's too much hack and slash IMO...

[Yobor]

I agree totally with Tulac. 3.5 and 3 work better in theory, but a lot of the time players get bogged down with everything thye have to pay attention to. In 2nd edition it was much simpler, and there was more roleplaying, and the DM had more choice.