Quote from: misterguignol;525359What page are specialist burglars on again?  

Specialist mages have prohibited schools of spells that they can't use, as well as benefits with the school they specialize in.  That is literally mechanical differentiation.



Translation: there is no mechanical variation, except for these mechanical variations that I am about to list.

A specialist burglar is just a thief that spends their points on Climbing and hiding in shadows not on Open locks and find remove traps. The point is they have no unique rules.
2e Illusionists are the same they have the same limits as any other specialist mage. Kits are different from sub-classes because sub-classes have unique mechanics where as kits use the core mechanics to enhance role-pay options.

But there is obviously no point trying to converse as you don't want to have an actual discussion so okay fine.

Quote from: jibbajibba;525374But there is obviously no point trying to converse as you don't want to have an actual discussion so okay fine.

Ah, the Internet flounce.  Last bastion of people who have been caught out not knowing what they are talking about.

PS - because illusionists have prohibited schools they functionally do have a tailored spell list in 2e.  You would know that, if you knew what you were talking about.

Quote from: misterguignol;525377Ah, the Internet flounce.  Last bastion of people who have been caught out not knowing what they are talking about.

PS - because illusionists have prohibited schools they functionally do have a tailored spell list in 2e.  You would know that, if you knew what you were talking about.

Sigh....
I promised I would not get personal so I will try and explain it again.

The argument was that the Kits in 2e started the min/max paradigm that came to dominate DnD.

My position is that 2e tried to reduce the number of classes and specifically the mechanical variations that had grown up round each new class as it was introduced. I identified a bunch of classes that had been eliminated from 2e as a result of the ability to use Kits. I also stated that Kits do not introduce new mechanics instead they use a range of exisitng mechanics , such as NW proficiencies, reaction bonuses etc as a way to make classes varied without the need for lots of additional mechanics.

Now in doing so I made an error about Druids, they are still in there. Illusionists are there but there are there as a variant on the base wizard class one of 8 possible variants. It's obvious that they list out the illusionist example to prevent people whining that they had 'removed illusionists' from the game.

The move to min/max is far earlier than 2e. It dates back to OD&D and rangers and paladins and it hit a peak in AD&D with the publishing of the UA.
I really think that 2e was an aim to real in all of that and shift the focus from "what mechanical advantage does my PC have" to "how does my PC fit into this game world".
 
Now I am going to stop participating in this discussion not because I am "flouncing" but because its pointless. You have an opinion I have an opinion.
We are not going to agree.

Maybe kits are like a mirror, if you see gobs of flavor and ideas, then you probably aren't a power gamer, if you see min/max potential well there you go.  Most players are likely somewhere in the middle, they enjoy both.  Kits then serve two purposes.  Fluff and Crunch.

Some might find them unnecessary, but they shouldn't begrudge the enjoyment that others might get from the resource.

Cheers

PS- I like how this forum lets folks get nasty, it actually keeps things civil overall.  Whining get shut down quickly and everyone can benefit by everyone watching their toes.

Quote from: Teazia;525435Maybe kits are like a mirror, if you see gobs of flavor and ideas, then you probably aren't a power gamer, if you see min/max potential well there you go.  Most players are likely somewhere in the middle, they enjoy both.

Like a Rorschach test.  

Incidentally, Myth & Magic a 2e "future-clone" (my word) just reached 100% funding of its Players Book Kickstarter in 3 or 4 days.  Its a pretty tight system that via a two year open playtest cleaned up the rough edges of 2e.  Check out the free starter books.

Cheers

Quote from: Teazia;525440Incidentally, Myth & Magic a 2e "future-clone" (my word) just reached 100% funding of its Players Book Kickstarter in 3 or 4 days.  Its a pretty tight system that via a two year open playtest cleaned up the rough edges of 2e.  Check out the free starter books.

Cheers

What's the asking price for a physical corebook?  I need to know so I can budget money for it. The free stuff is awesome but I have no computer to store PDF stuff long-term.

Quote from: Marleycat;525451What's the asking price for a physical corebook?  I need to know so I can budget money for it. The free stuff is awesome but I have no computer to store PDF stuff long-term.

35 for the hardback shipped.  75 for 4 hardbacks shipped.  A bit more for international shipping.  I you happen to be in Taiwan or Vietnam, I'll break you off a piece for 23.75.  

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/705393141/myth-and-magic-players-guide-2e-revived-and-update

Because I'm having problems explaining my point, I will now cite chapter and verse:

AD&D 2e TSR PHB (10th printing, if that matters), page 25, column 1, paragraph 2:

     "The character classes are divided into four groups according to general occupations: warrior, wizard, priest, and rouge. Within each group are several similar character classes. All classes within a group share the same Hit Dice, as well as combat and saving throw progressions. Each character class within a group has different special powers and abilities that are available only to that class. Each player must select a group for his character, then a specific class within that group."

And the example of Complete Fighter's Handbook, p 13, column 1, paragraph 1 & 2:
     "Sometimes it's just not enough to be a Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger. Each of those classes is a lot of fun, but there's nothing which says you want to be restricted to three types of fun.
     So, here we're going to show you how to create and play other sorts of warrior characters."

At this point kits read off like wholly separate classes. General description, role, secondary skills, WP, NWPs, Equipment, Special Bennies/Hindrance, Starting Wealth options, & Races -- it's all mechanically there. They are as classes, and for all intents and purposes they should be separate classes, but they disambiguate it into an utter mess. Hence the following...

Here comes an example of the stupid part (Complete Fighter's, p 14, bottom of column 1):
Kits and Warrior Classes
     "In general, each Kit can be used with each of the three warrior classes. Your character can, for instance, be a Barbarian Fighter, an Amazon Paladin, or a Samurai Ranger...
    (proceeding discussion of questionability of Pirate Paladin, and saying it is possible depending on GM naturally, etc.)
     When one warrior class cannot choose a specific Warrior Kit, the exceptions will be noted."

Completely stupid addition that mucks everything up. It's one too many transparencies added atop each other. Group>class>kit was wholly unnecessary when they wrote out kits essentially as classes. When there's a Paladin-"everything" type Warrior for every idea out there, you end up with a whole lot of nothing.

I like AD&D 2e, but some things were outright stupid and their effort to disambiguate classes and kits by subordination (even though they have essentially the same structural design!) was one of them. If they wanted to focus on kits as flavor then they shouldn't have pre-selected WPs in Samurai frex, or given special power/weakness at all, etc. If they kept it at fluff & flavor, fine subordinate kits into class into group; but as it is they wrote out new classes and tried to squeeze them into the PHB core + optional classes.

Now, I like Kits. But it's because I like Kits as Classes. Because mechanically they are essentially new classes. However, if read as RAW then you get the previous nonsense, like trying to squeeze a pirate into a paladin. But then read as RAW there's only 4 non-optional classes within 4 groups, WPs/NWPs are completely optional, and there's only 1 initiative system. So... the game's been a DIY toolkit from the beginning.

Quote from: Teazia;525435Maybe kits are like a mirror, if you see gobs of flavor and ideas, then you probably aren't a power gamer, if you see min/max potential well there you go.  Most players are likely somewhere in the middle, they enjoy both.  Kits then serve two purposes.  Fluff and Crunch.

Some might find them unnecessary, but they shouldn't begrudge the enjoyment that others might get from the resource.

Cheers

PS- I like how this forum lets folks get nasty, it actually keeps things civil overall.  Whining get shut down quickly and everyone can benefit by everyone watching their toes.

I like this explanation very much.

Well you did get one thing correct.  Like it's predecessors 2e is very much a DIY game, problem was most people have no idea how to do DIY correctly, hence the advent of 3e and then from there the horrors of 4e because of the mistakes made by 3e. Simple really, maybe 5e will get it right.

Quote from: jibbajibba;525329This for the win.
Kits actually reduced the number of classes and mechanical variation. They eliminated the thief acrobat, the assasin (you might debate that one), the illusionist, the druid, the cavalier and the barbarian.
They did this by pointing out the very obvious point that a barbarian is just what you call a fighter you haven't met yet. A druid is just a cleric of a Neutral nature god etc ...

My esteemed colleage Master Guignol has already pointed this out - but this is just complete bullshit. You mustn't have read the 2nd edition PHB or any of the Completes in a long time, if ever: illusionists are a specialist wizard (in the PHB) and druids are a class (in the PHB); the acrobat is a kit in the Complete Thief, as I think is the assassin. Barbarian and cavalier are both kits in the Complete Fighter.

QuoteNow eventually the same driver that had been in the game from the beginning, that gave us rangers, paladins, monks, the min/max class building mechanical desire, the same thing that gave us classes in The Beholder and White Dwarf and Dragon for black priests, archers, and just about everything else you could think of. that driver took over.
2e actually put a halt on that, stopped the express train that had hit 3rd gear with Unearthed Arcana and realised that you didn't need separate mechanics for every single different variant on the 4 core classes.
Skills and powers was the obvious extension of that mode of thinking. It said from these templates you can build anything you like. Now the problem with Skills and powers is it was horribly horribly broken and ill conceived.

Sure, the 2nd edition PHB and DMG put a halt on that (the DMG gives sound advice on class creation, stressing that most of the time you really don't need classes for the barbarian, assassin, archer, etc.). I don't disagree. But TSR couldn't help itself, and that's why we got kits. And, after that, Skills & Powers. Both of which were really egregious and just flew in the face of all the clear-headed advice in the DMG.

Quote from: noisms;525514My esteemed colleage Master Guignol has already pointed this out - but this is just complete bullshit. You mustn't have read the 2nd edition PHB or any of the Completes in a long time, if ever: illusionists are a specialist wizard (in the PHB) and druids are a class (in the PHB); the acrobat is a kit in the Complete Thief, as I think is the assassin. Barbarian and cavalier are both kits in the Complete Fighter.



Sure, the 2nd edition PHB and DMG put a halt on that (the DMG gives sound advice on class creation, stressing that most of the time you really don't need classes for the barbarian, assassin, archer, etc.). I don't disagree. But TSR couldn't help itself, and that's why we got kits. And, after that, Skills & Powers. Both of which were really egregious and just flew in the face of all the clear-headed advice in the DMG.

Dude you misse dhte point.

In the 1E Unearthed Arcana The Cavalier, Theif Acrobat, and Barbarian are completely new classes with their own unique mechanics. Illusionists are a complete class in 1e with their own unique mechanics and spell lists.
I was pointing out that 2e reduced the degree of mechanical bloat by moving these classes to kits (or int he case of specialist mages as part of the core Wizard class).
Kits make use of existing mechanics. The kit for the barbarian for example has roleplay suggestions, background ideas and if I recall a free NWP. compare it to the UA barbarian, with D12 hit dice, unique mechanics on jumping, wilderness survival, hitting creatures that normally can't be hit by non-magical weapons etc etc etc....

If you think that the 2e Kit for a Barbarian has anything like the mechanical bloat of the 1e Barbarian then I suspect you haven't read the 1e Barbarian in an awfully long time.....

Quote from: Cole;453577Frankly for much of the 2e era I played with hodgepodge of 1e, 2e, and Basic rules depending on what seemed to work at the moment. I do not think this was a rare situation.

It wasn't. As a teenager I did not realize the editions were different for quite some time.

Quote from: jibbajibba;525519In the 1E Unearthed Arcana The Cavalier, Theif Acrobat, and Barbarian are completely new classes with their own unique mechanics.

Not to be overly pedantic, but they weren't new classes.   They had been around for a while.  UA was just a compilation of some of the classes from Dragon Magazine.

Either way, it doesn't take away from your point though.