Re: edition wars

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:27:22 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 07:36:43 -0000 (UTC), David Chmelik
<dchmelik@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 11:01:29 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

You can't really hold up 1E and then say 2E is worse because of the
system itself.

>
People do because removed assassins, monks, etc... if bards, cavaliers,
druids, rangers, thief-acrobats weren't removed, were significantly
changed... Dungeon Master Guide (DMG) was significantly shortened,
removing much good material.  That's why my AD&D DM retained everything
from AD&D 1e and used what he wanted from 2e.  The point is by removing
relevant material, it basically became a variant--like mostly a subset
(smaller part of original with minor changes).  The fact it was a money-
grab by new CEO (gamers in general hated, because she considered them
beneath her) after they got rid of the original D&D creators, is well-
documented.  That doesn't make it bad to play if one allows older
compatible rules.  Just, on their own, new editions overall got worse.

 
Except those character classes weren't really removed. They were added
back in by the first four splat-books, which were an intended part of
the redesign from the start. Similarly, a lot of the 'removed material'
from DMG was added back in with the Dungeon Master Guide books, which
-again- was the intended plan from the start.

Of course they were removed: returned in name only, not as the rules for
them were.  The new ones are mostly/all entirely different classes just
with same name (sort of like BECMI D&D mystic is most similar to AD&D 1e
monk but a different class).  There's at least one exception that AD&D 1e
monk rules were returned in a Forgotten Realms set/book, but they may have
been lawful evil only, and specific to Toril, though I've seen people use
rules in other campaign settings.