What were the flaws of AD&D 2e?

I've heard a lot about the flaws of 3(.5), 4, and 5. And I've read enough on AD&D 1 and BECMI to kind of get a gist for some of its problems. In fact, studying those older editions really helped me understand even more things that went wrong in 3(.5), like why do Fighter's not get a bonus to strength-based rolls as a less chance-based update of percentile strength, and Leadership as a bonus feat to represent their army-attracting preeminence? Why is weapon specialization now something anyone can do and costs feat slots, and it took until Paizo revisions (how you know something's bad: even Paizo realizes it's messed up) before they put something even vaguely resembling it back in.There was no real reason to gut those features, they helped him stay relevant in later levels.

But what were the flaws of 2e?

Retaining descending AC despite ditching attack matrices for THAC0 is an obvious one. If you're revising systems for simplicity sake might as well go all the way. One of the few things 3(.5) did right was steal the AC system from Gamma World 4, unifying things so big numbers are always good. 20-X is such an easy conversion which would have saved a ton of headaches for new players.
And I know a lot of it's books were organized in unintuitive ways but so was every edition up to that point, and like going from Attack Matrices to THAC0 it was still a step in the right direction.
And I know there were a metric butt-ton of optional Kits, many of which were poorly balanced, sort of like a prototype of Paizo's 80 gorillion untested archetypes mess.
And I know it called Demons and Devils by their names in abyssal and infernal (tanar'ri and baatezu, respectively) so soccermoms would stop trying to burn their building down. But Daemons also get a weird name they call themselves too (yugoloths), so I can't really even fault that.

But what were the rest?

GIANT KITE FLYING

>Retaining descending AC despite ditching attack matrices for THAC0 is an obvious one. If you're revising systems for simplicity sake might as well go all the way. One of the few things 3(.5) did right was steal the AC system from Gamma World 4, unifying things so big numbers are always good. 20-X is such an easy conversion which would have saved a ton of headaches for new players.
Only because nobody explains it to them correctly.

Literally, there is only one difference between 2e THAC0 and 3.X AC. Just a single one. In 3.X, the attacker brings the bulk of the modifiers and the defender sets the target number. In 2e THAC0, the attacker sets the target number (Their THAC0) and the defender brings the big modifier (Their armor class). If you have THAC0 20 and are attacking someone with an AC of 10, they're adding +10 to your roll, which needs to hit a 20 or better. If you had THAC0 15, you would need to hit 15 with that +10 modifier.

Longswords were THE melee weapon.
Dart specialists could get absurd.
Thieves sucked, were terrible at emulating the thieves of pulp fiction, and were an active drag factor in combat.
Demihumans were strictly better than humans, and their drawbacks both ground the game to a halt and came to play so late they'd almost never come up.
Casting times were typically smaller than weapon speeds (darts were oddly a notable exception here), so casters could basically always get spells off.

It still adds an unnecessary step, and is therefore, a flaw. It's not a huge one, but it is a flaw.

>Longswords were THE melee weapon.

Katanas were better.

Except it doesn't. You roll and you add a static number to hit a static target.

Darts n' shit.

Most of the possible stat values were completely pointless.

That's not really a flaw though since you rolled for stats, so having less variation between them was good.
There's a much larger difference between 8 and 16 in more modern D&D than there was back then.

Only if you're privy to information the DM has access to, which also requires that the DM give you that information to add to to your totals.

>its still a flaw
Oh shit, i thought you were here for discussion, though apparently its shitposting.
Ive played 2e since 1989, the day it came out, almost 30 years now. No system is perfect, but this one is my favorite. THAC0 is a great metric for combat, i have never understood why people cant get it.
I think you might just be legit stupid if the concept of THAC0 is a flaw. In fact, i think you might have a touch of the 'tism, user.

>Ive played 2e since 1989, the day it came out, almost 30 years now. No system is perfect, but this one is my favorite. THAC0 is a great metric for combat
Loving every laugh.

It's extremely modular, which makes all its subsystems feel disjointed and often doesn't give you a "default" ruling. For example, how do wizards actually get spells at first level and as they progress? Well, there are 4 different options given, ranging from rolling to learn every individual one to just handing the player a list chosen by the GM to letting them pick a certain number, and the one accepted as "default" is only accepted as such because it was listed first in the book.

No one runs the game exactly the same as anyone else, because the sheer number of option selections that need to be made before you even start guarantee it.

Oh man, it's an assravaged fanboy.

This is a thread to discuss the flaws of AD&D, Thac0 requires an additional step (adding the target's AC to the roll, which requires that the DM give out information that normally on they're privy to) that ascending AC doesn't require; this is, in an objective sense, unnecessary, and thus could readily be considered a flaw. Is it crippling? No. Is it even particularly large? No. But it is still a flaw. Stop jumping to the defensive and assuming that everyone who takes issue with this is stupid.

>Dart specialists could get absurd.

Only if you use a particular set of optional rules and things. In regular play by the core book, they're decent but not great.

You subtract you roll from your THAC0, and that's the AC you hit.

If you have a to-hit AC 0 of 11 and you roll 9, you tell your DM "I hit AC 2" and if the enemies AC is 2 or worse then you hit.


It is EXACTLY the same math. The ascending AC system you're used to started life as a houserule in a magazine for running the same system with addition instead of subtraction.

Isn't the reason Longsword was king is because basically all the enchanted gear was a longsword and axes only went up to +2 or some bullshit?

This was another problem yes: tons of subsystems that were only viable for 3 levels because it was impossible to get enchanted boxing gloves or whatever

I really REALLY want to play Advanced Dungeons and Dragons but theres now way I'd get a group together
Never played beyond Baldur's Gate but I have the books

>You subtract you roll from your THAC0, and that's the AC you hit.

>roll dice, add modifiers, that's the AC you hit
>roll dice, add modifiers, subtract roll from thac0, that's the AC you hit

Three steps versus four. Now boys and girls, which is the bigger number?

You're arbitrarily conflating all the modifiers of 3.x into one function while saying that multiple modifiers of THAC0 are separate functions just to make it seem more complex.

Conversely, there are far fewer situational modifiers overall in pre-3E D&D, which means fewer modifiers you have to add, which means it's almost always actually less complex overall.

That is exactly the reason.

>Dart specialists could get absurd.
That's a meme. By RAW the darts get staggered throughout the round and you won't get your full attack sequence off before you get charged.

>Thieves sucked,
They sucked in every iteration of TSR D&D. It helps that Gary never ran the class before adding to a book of optional rules that everyone took as gospel back in OD&D.
>were terrible at emulating the thieves of pulp fiction,
Fighters were originally meant to fill that niche.

>Demihumans were strictly better than humans,
If you meet the prereqs, you probably should play a subhuman for dat infravision.
Multiclassing is usually a bad idea though. You'll be a level or two down on the rest of the party and have bad hp.

If you want to talk about real issues with the system, look no farther than initiative (especially weapon speeds) and round structure.
That weapon speeds were left in for 2e boggles the mind. No table under the earth ran that bullshit and even Gary disavowed it.

I generally have a good sense of this, but for the life of be I cannot tell if you're joking or baiting.

Roll dice, add your modifiers and your opponent's AC to the roll, then compare to thac0 is my favorite variant.

In 1e melee attacks always went before spells, no matter where they were in the initiative. Did they really change it?

How would YOU tweak AD&D anons?
I'd probably give Thief's a better table. Didn't Priests have a decent one?

Thief as subclass for warrior, bard as subclass for wizard, for starters.

>Did they really change it?
They did. Every spell writeup lists an initiative penalty instead.

>That weapon speeds were left in for 2e boggles the mind. No table under the earth ran that bullshit and even Gary disavowed it.
care to elaborate? I have no clue

I could dig it
Make them still stuck with shortbows and shortswords and the like but maybe let them max out at two pips in specialization

I've never seen anyone use those rules. Clunky (and arbitrary!) bullshit meant to 'add realism' to an already awkward portion of a highly abstract system. Gary has said many times that he didn't use them at his own table and that they were the worst part of 1E.

Bigger weapons make you go lower on the initiative, so you get buttfucked by smaller weapons going sanic fast. In 1e, weapon length counteracted this by making longer weapons attack first. This would encourage you to carry a big ass polearm to keep enemies at bay.

2e threw away length, but kept speed so as to fuck big weapons in a "you will never act" way.

i still don't understand.
So if you have THAC0 20 you need to roll a 20 to hit someone?

I've used them, and consider them a superior way of differentiating weapons vs. attack bonus modifiers. The problem lies in having to reroll initiative constantly, not WSF. My ideal would probably just have "draw speed modifier" or something and have it be a penalty to the initial roll.

Fighters percentile strength begs to differ.
You had an 18 or you sucked and should choose a different class.

In the original description of thief in ad&d1 is that it is a non-combat class, centered around dungeon crawling and only dungeon crawling.

It's a dedicated skillmonkey. And it's not completely helpless in combat, it has backstab. It's just not meant to take the fighting mans job of being a fighting man. Thiefs are sneaky hit and run then hide while the poison on your blade takes affect and the rest of the team mops up.

>Thac0 requires an additional step (adding the target's AC to the roll, which requires that the DM give out information that normally on they're privy to

I don't think I've ever had a DM that did this. Usually the DM keeps track of the players' THAC0 scores, and the players just have to tell the DM what their modified attack roll is and he lets them know if they hit or not. Telling the players the AC of the thing they're attacking sounds retarded.

they usually figure it out pretty quick anyway

Because the vast majority of modifiers in 3.x were kept on your sheet at all times. Keep in mind that I'm not defending 3.x either, ascending AC is not a synonymn for 3.x.

>That is exactly the reason.

Not the sole reason. Due to a combination of good damage (especially against large things) and reasonable speed factor, they were an all around superb choice on their own.

>I generally have a good sense of this, but for the life of be I cannot tell if you're joking or baiting.

Not baiting, just dealing with unyielding fanboys who refuse to acknowledge a minor flaw. I'm not sure why, I guess they think it's tantamount to giving ground to fans of 3.x.

>Roll dice, add your modifiers and your opponent's AC to the roll, then compare to thac0 is my favorite variant.

Not all modifiers are equal. Adding modifiers that are always present on your sheet is not equivalent to comparing situational modifiers.

Sure, add their AC and your bonuses to hit, see if you roll 20 or more total.

>In the original description of thief in ad&d1 is that it is a non-combat class, centered around dungeon crawling and only dungeon crawling.

In a game where combat is the most mechanically intensive and time consuming segment of the game, this is unacceptable.

>So if you have THAC0 20 you need to roll a 20 to hit someone?
If you have a THAC0 of 20, you need to roll a 20 to hit a guy wearing magical full plate armor that gives him an AC of 0.

If you have a THAC0 of 20, you need to roll a 10+ to hit a guy wearing no armor so his AC is 10.

If you have a THAC0 of 20, you need to roll a 15+ to hit a guy wearing armor that gives him an AC of 5.

>Casting times were typically smaller than weapon speeds (darts were oddly a notable exception here), so casters could basically always get spells off.

Speeds work like Exalted. They weren't supposed to reset every turn but work like final fantasy ATB.

It also by RAW did massive damage to monsters.

How about descending armor class but instead of THAC0 you just add your level and mod to the targets AC and roll under it?
Is that too clunky? The obvious problem is you need to tell the DM your level+mod then he adds it to the AC and you still need to tell the DM your attack

#
>If you have a THAC0 of 20, you need to roll a 10+ to hit a guy wearing no armor so his AC is 10.
This is the equivalent of adding that 10 AC to your roll and rolling to meet thac0

>If you have a THAC0 of 20, you need to roll a 15+ to hit a guy wearing armor that gives him an AC of 5.
This is the equivalent of addind that AC of 5 to your d20 roll.

Given that players are going to spend a bunch of time guessing at the AC of an enemy and will soon figure it out anyway, why not tell them upfront?

Dart proficency fighter

>Given that players are going to spend a bunch of time guessing at the AC of an enemy and will soon figure it out anyway, why not tell them upfront?

Are you saying that you also tell your players the magical bonuses that their weapons and gear are providing?

Yeah, the basic shit like damage or hit bonuses. Why wouldn't I?

I know Barbarian started as a kit for Fighter, and Ranger, Paladin, Druid, and modern non-prestige version of Bard started as subclasses.

But where did they get the idea for the garbagefire that is Sorcerer from?

I'm not sure what that has to do with the post you replied to. But I always figured sorcerer was something they made from scratch so there would be an "original" core class for 3e.

>Yeah, the basic shit like damage or hit bonuses. Why wouldn't I?
How would they know a magic sword is +2 or +3?

Because he told them, and there's nothing to gain from keeping that secret. Weapons with a + bonus were a mistake, they're boring as dogshit.

how big the special effects budget is

If you take the higher-level DnD planar "economy" seriously, +1 spears and +4 arrows (iirc, might be +3) are equivalent to forge, and most lower-plus equipment is likely repurposed celestial ammunition that has filtered down into backwater planes.

I didn't mean to reply. I was just opening the reply box then forgot to clear it

But in 3.0 it's literally just "wizard but spontaneous caster." And in every edition since it's still had trouble finding itself and becoming anything other than "worse wizard (also warlock in 4e)."
For that matter, spontaneous casting period was 3.0 unique. Bards and Paladins were still prepared in 2e.

If they wanted an original class, why is it so bland, overshadowed, and forgettable?

>also warlock in 4e

Sorcerers are much, much better at damage than Warlocks. Warlocks are for people who want an effective damage/crowd control compromise or more EDGY.

Thief sucks, multiclassing is OP and its drawbacks barely matter for the vast majority of games because you'll never ever get to the point where the level cap comes into play, weapon balance sucks and the game's weighted towards swords to a ridiculous degree, archery is the only real way to fight for several levels, dual classing sucks, humans are blatantly inferior to demihumans at everything.

Are you joking? You've got those swapped my dude. Warlocks were the singletarget masters, and sorcerers the wonky compromise.

>multiclassing is OP... dual classing sucks...humans are blatantly inferior to demihumans at everything.

Sounds related.

Good Sorcerers are single-target skirmishers with splash damage effects. Good Warlocks are Wizard-tier control spells stapled onto a really janky damage base, or more commonly Wizard-tier control spells stapled onto a gish hybrid.

There are also the "good" sorcerers that use dragon breath 3 times a turn but that's actually terrible and we don't talk about those.

Is not clear for m how it did work in 1st - was the polearm faster or slower?

Didn't Dragonborn have something like that as a prestige class with their actual dragon breath? I remember racial prestige classes kinda sucking dick though

>You had an 18 or you sucked and should choose a different class.
Nah.
I preferred BECMI in this regard anyway. Weapon mastery fixed this, and rogues to many extent, especially if you allowed them to dual wield.
A backstab with sword and 17-20 rolled dagger would be remembered by the unlikely survivor.

A fighter with 18 strength had between +1 to +3 extra accuracy and damage compared to one with 17.
YES it absolutely mattered. If you didn't have 18 strength you were missing out on one of your classes defining strengths.

To be fair if your roll 4d6 drop the lowest you are unlikely to hit that

You would hit quit reliably anyway after few levels.
And those str 18/00 gloves were quit common, a very common quest aim/reward

It was a feat called Ancient Soul, not a prestige class. In itself the feat was fine, the problem was there was a recharge aspect that munchkin-types would try to use to self-damage in order to recharge the breathe weapon multiple times per round and the result was unacceptable

>tfw no group to learn and play with as a Myrmidon

If I were to take my copy of AD&D 2e, and:

>translated its THAC0 to Attack Bonuses
>copied in 3.5's weapon list so longswords weren't the defacto most bestest ever.
>organized the book so related pieces were next to each other instead of scattered all over
>Removed weapon speeds (or maybe broke it down to a simple light/heavy/casting structure because anything further is too noodly)
>found a better solution to demihumans than giving them better multiclassing capabilities (at least than dualcasting) and special abilities but then limiting level progression
>gave thieves something useful to do in combat outside a surprise round
>changed rogue class skill scores to d20 because they're all increments of 5 why not.
>made percentile strength a bonus that does not require 18 strength so all Fighters get access

And named it 2.5, would anyone play it?

Race choice restricting both class choice and level limits was bullshit and led to both the stereotypical pigeonholed race depictions AND the need for lots & lots of subraces, just so you could be, say, a dwarven wizard.

Guys the reason Thac0 is just cause there's a lot of fiddly things about math you need to remember about it. It's just kinda fucky to recall that subtracting a negative number means you technically add it to a result. But hey that's technically there with AC (you occasionally but rarely need to add a negative number which means subtracting it) but I think the real reason is as such:

The reason AC ultimately caught on more than Thac0 ever did was cause it used the standardized rolling method. 3.X had a lot of flaws but one thing that really helped set an appeal for a more mass audience was that most if not all rolls were now done with d20 + modifier vs number to go over. You did it not just for attacking but also skills and saving throws.

Compare that with mister 'you need to remember to roll d% for skills' and 'roll d20 and add modifier against lists of effect types for saving throws but you also get % dice rolls for your race maybe' and yea it's no wonder AD&D has a reputation for bad dice mechanics.

And I know the rebuttle will be "none of that stuff is hard to learn" and buddy. Pal. Bro. Do you know how many fucking people go "what do I roll again?" in fucking D&D 3.5? Again the game where you ROLL A D20 AND ADD AN ABILITY MODIFIER FOR MOST IF NOT ALL ROLLS? Yea that's what we're talking about here.

You're in the minority. Accept that.

Dwarves have a minor anti-magic field around them. Of COURSE they don't make good wizards, or any other kind of caster except cleric.

Also, would you take away Human's only reason for existing at all?

Maybe make humans defining trait more interesting than "the race that can be anything"?

2E HAS NO FLAWS AND ANYBODY WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS A FUCKWIT

And seriously, there are a couple of issues that drive me up the wall.

>Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard, Inverse Rogue is still present, but it's delayed.
>Relies quite a bit on DM fiat.
>Huge and unnecessary list of weapons.
>Gygaxian autism
>CHARTS AND TABLES
>POORLY ORGANIZED CHARTS AND TABLES
>BOY HOWDY I SURE HOPE YOU LIKE SEARCHING ALL OVER THE FUCKING RULEBOOK FOR THE PROPER CHART AND/OR TABLE

It wasn't 4e, so it's fucking trash.

It's not; it's D20+Mods>=THAC0-Target AC

Make humans better, don't make other races worse. It's a simple equation and I can't believe Gygax never thought of it.

But then, as far as I'm concerned, his precious humanocentrism approach to fantasy worlds can go burn itself at the stake.

>>CHARTS AND TABLES
>>POORLY ORGANIZED CHARTS AND TABLES
>>BOY HOWDY I SURE HOPE YOU LIKE SEARCHING ALL OVER THE FUCKING RULEBOOK FOR THE PROPER CHART AND/OR TABLE

>>Huge and unnecessary list of weapons.
Especially polearms. The survey said you all wanted us to remove the obscure polearms in our shift to 2e. So, we did the math and a proper simplified weapon list needs at most like, what, 35 polearms on it? Yeah, 35 seems about right, might be going a tad overboard with our simplicity but if players decide there's too few they can always add them back in their own games.

>D20+Mods>=THAC0-Target AC

Yea I mean contrast with D20+Mods > Target AC

...

uhm what was your point exactly?

They've never done that without feats.

Would you just give them Birthright bloodlines, the predecessor to feats?
Or like, maybe let them reroll one stat every level and take the new score if it's higher? Would that be a good way to represent their variance and ability to excel?

The big problem with thief skills is that the idea behind them is never really explained well. Anybody can stand in a dark corner, the thief melts into the shadows. Anybody can walk around quietly, the thief is silent. Anybody can find a trap with enough prodding, the thief Knows where it is. So forth.

>BOY HOWDY I SURE HOPE YOU LIKE SEARCHING ALL OVER THE FUCKING RULEBOOK FOR THE PROPER CHART AND/OR TABLE
Use the table index in the Contents.

>Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard, Inverse Rogue is still present, but it's delayed.
I think it's amelliorated by the old school (endurance exploration) playstyle present in the rules; of course, modules and supplements based around emulating high fantasy novels squandered one D&D's strengths

>Relies quite a bit on DM fiat.
DM problems are out-of-game social problems; trying to resolve them through rules has no particular advantage (see 3.PF)

>Gygaxian autism
Gygax was long gone from TSR at that point

>CHARTS AND TABLES
>POORLY ORGANIZED CHARTS AND TABLES
>BOY HOWDY I SURE HOPE YOU LIKE SEARCHING ALL OVER THE FUCKING RULEBOOK FOR THE PROPER CHART AND/OR TABLE

Alternatively, modular subsystems that you rip out all sorts of things to your taste without messing up the entire system

You mean [d20-Mods]=Lowest AC hit.

To be entirely fair, sometimes that stuff was unintuitive. Like bonus non-weapon profs were in a different section from non-weapon profs (iirc, they were in the stat section?) Regardless, it was still a chore.

Mind you, not all of the newer D&Ds are good about this!

There is no difference as a player. As a player, the part of the equation that mattered to you didn't change whatsoever, d20+Mods.

The only thing wrong with THAC0 is its shitty explanation.

Don't get me wrong, I don't HATE those things I outlined. I do recognize them as not perfect and minor pet peeves of mine. I would still argue that 2E is still the superior version of D&D. 5E came close, but it did too much with HP bloat and having unkillable PCs.

Sure, if you want to confuse everyone.

If that's your idea of a good explanation, just make a THAC0 slide rule and tell them to use that. It will save you time.

Kneejerk thoughts on fixing humans in AD&D?

First: Remove that stupid multiclassing/dual-classing split, because that's the other big thing that grinds my gears. Either all races Multiclass, or else demihumans Multiclass and humans can Cross-Class, which is basically "multiclassing, 3e/5e style".

Second: At every 5th level, humans can increase one ability score of their choice by 1, though they cannot raise a score higher than 18 with this trait.

The GM is still a participant. And most players will at least attempt to decode what the hell they're rolling against. It's only natural they want to understand the outcome of their dice and if they're met with resistance that translates to frustration.

>if you want to confuse everyone
If your players can't to understand "THAC0 - your modified roll = lowest AC hit" (which is what that guy was meaning), you need to stop playing with dyscalculics.

>And most players will at least attempt to decode what the hell they're rolling against.

And players know their own THAC0, so they absolutely can

>If that's your idea of a good explanation, just make a THAC0 slide rule and tell them to use that. It will save you time.
it wasn't a sliderule it was one of those rotating discs.

The main flaw: departing from XP for treasure recovered in favor of XP for specific, class-based actions and totally arbitrary, ad hoc awards given out by the DM for such ambiguities as "good role-playing" and "accomplishing your goals."

>departing from XP for treasure recovered in favor of XP for specific, class-based actions and totally arbitrary, ad hoc awards given out by the DM for such ambiguities as "good role-playing" and "accomplishing your goals."
Aren't both of those optional rules in 2e?

The individual awards for class actions were optional, but they still got more attention in the book than the proper XP-for-GP system.

Ad hoc awards were the default in 2e, which totally unmoors the game from being a game at all.

> YOU ROLLED WELL ON YOUR STATS, HERE'S BONUS XP!

> YOUR HUMAN IS ABOUT TO SURPASS HIS ALLIES? WELL THE ELF AND THE DWARF ASK FOR A RESET!

> IT'S ALL OF US THEN ALL OF THEM OR WE CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT JUST HOW QUICKLY YOU CAN STAB WITH A DAGGER VS A SHORTSWORD.

> I GUESS SNEAK ATTACK WITH A DAGGER FOR 2d4-2 DOESN'T SEEMS IMPRESSIVE.

> LOOK, THE FIGHTER DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A TARGET % TO MOVE SILENTLY!

> I AM A MAGE LEVEL 1. I CAN CAST EXACTLY 1 SPELL PER DAY, THEN AM WEAKER THAN A FUCKING HOUSEHOLD CAT!

> 3 YEARS AGO, I HEARD SOMEONE FINALLY ROLLED STATS HIGH ENOUGH TO PLAY A PALADIN. GUY CHOSE FIGHTER BECAUSE LEVELING WOULD'VE BEEN TOO LONG.

> THE HUMAN DUAL-CLASSED! BETTER BABY-SIT HIM UNTIL HE CATCHES UP TO LEVEL 5 AND ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING!

> THAT KOBOLD GIVES 5 XP! BUT NOT TO YOU. ONLY THE FIGHTER EARN XP THAT WAY. ONLY 399 MORE TO LEVEL UP!

> LOOK, WE HAVE CUSTOMIZATION TOOLS NOW. YOU CAN SET YOUR ATTACK AND DAM BONUS AS IF YOU HAD A STAT OF 20 NOW!

> LOOK, I AM NOW UNABLE TO READ, COLORBLIND, DEEP SLEEPER AND IMMORTAL!

It was perfect.

I forgot:

> THE ROGUE SNEAKED INTO THE DRAGON LAIR, FOUND THE HOARD, "LOOTED IT", LEVELED UP 4 TIMES AND KILLED THE DRAGON ON HIS WAY BACK.

if you reward for treasure then the entire game just becomes about stealing and killing things to loot their bodies.

Instead it was Group "reward for overcoming an enemy or obstacle" and Individual "use your classes abilities in the way they were intended to be played, towards being constructive"

Clerics must preach and act in service to their god, wizards must solve problems with spells, both casters must research spells and create magic items, Thieves must steal, Fighting men must win fights.