2E vs 3E: 8 Years Later. A new perspective?

[Reynard]

Dump that horrible dual classing mechanics and allow humans to straight up multiclass.

I agree with this. The purpose of multi-classing, IMO, is to fill in the missing niches and archetypes, so there's no reason to limit it to demi-humans. And given the nature of 2E multiclassing, the act of doing so is quite restriction enough: it takes a lot of XP to get to level 2/2 (depending on the class). i much prefer 2E multiclassing to 3E multiclassing, and have houseruled it back in.

 

[SuStel]

The problem with the racial level limits is that players chose races where the limit would not come into play since most campaigns topped out at about 12th level. You simply chose races based on the level limits. If you wanted to play a fighter, you chose either dwarf or human. Fighter/magic user - elf or half elf. Since the level limits didn't kick in all that often, they were not terribly useful as a balancing mechanic.

I've got two asides to make here.

First, the problem of level limits not taking effect because of retired characters was much more prevalent with AD&D Second Edition; the limits in the first edition were much lower.

Second, Gary Gygax and others have stated many times that level limits weren't included as a balancing factor. They are there to enforce the idea of a human-dominated world. Sure, elves can cast magic and hobbits can fight, but only humans can attain the absolute mastery of their classes needed to become Arch-Magi or Lords.

Feel free to disagree with this description of the D&D world, but that's what the creators had in mind. Gary, for instance, will tell you that he has little fondness for adventurers with pointed ears and pointed shoes...

 

[balterkn]

My list of love them in DnDX

2e:
-Clerics were significantly different from each other, more than just domain differences in 3e
-2e NWPs provided for skills outside "core competencies" much more easily than 3e skills (3e puts too many "core adventuring skills" into skills, and thus forcing a choice between gaining breadth verses depth as a character advances)
-Wizard & cleric spells tended to have more "non-combat" spells (my impression, no real analysis to back this up)
- Low statistics didn't kill character concepts (in 3e, just about any stat below 8 is unreasonable, but in 2e we had fun with some characters with 3-5's in a stat, and that low stat didn't really kill the character concept - basically the penalties/bonuses scaled more slowly with the changing stat)
- Looser integration among combat rules enabled us to keep those we wanted to simulate and ignore ones we didn't want to simulate - each campaign could more easily have a different feel
- The game had a more simulation feel; players would roll for things on tables and then have to invest stories that fit the results (useful to prevent the same character stories from being played over and over and over...); of course, we often did just pick the results we wanted


3e:
- 3e skills provide a more natural "training" progression
- BAB and iterative attack progression preferred in play (THAC0 wasn't hard, just BAB more "natural")
- Saves types more rational (fortitude, reflex, and will pretty easy for me to identify what type of save should be made in an unknown situation)
- Mechanically, the d20 system works for overcoming challenges with fewer tables (we can guess at DCs and modifiers without having to reference tables), but somehow (again, not quantifiable) some flavor seems lost


There are many more things I like about the two systems. These are just a 5 minute brain dump of what I've been thinking of recently.

Overall they are vaguely similar games with very different feels. My choice of which to use is based on what feel I want for that game.

 

[JoseFreitas]

I do not play 3rd, and I don't even play 2nd, rather a mix of 1st and 2nd. But I do buy a few 3rd Ed books, and in general I admire the rules design. But it's not a game I like to play (at last as a DM), for questions of taste and type of gameplay.

- I don't think PCs are meant to be super-hero, cinematic video game inspired heroes. I rather prefer the concept of obscure PCs slowly rising to fame and success. When a 3rd Ed PC reaches 20th level I am sure he gets less of a kick than a 1st edition PC reaching 10th level.

- I go so far as to question the need of an explicit skill system, as well as the need of a single mechanic in the game with all parts of the game (combat, magic, skills, etc) fitted into it. If that's what I wanted, I would have moved to GURPS way back then. There is nothing wrong with no skill system, we managed for years with AD&D1, the game had more than enough rules "subsystems" using different types of die rolls, etc to cater for anything. A Strength based skill? Use the Door Breaking roll, or perhaps the Bend Bars %, or if you need something that is more level dependent use the Paralyzation save, etc.... After all these years, I recognize that all these systems gave the (good) DM the tools to handle anything while retaining more of the organic (ie. non-contrived) feel and flavor of a pseudo-medieval game.

- I do not enjoy non-archetypical PCs. I find that the over-abundance of Feats and customization detracts from this, with weirdo Fighters that are all different from each other without really having a good story to cater for it. Plus, it makes the DMs work Hell.

- the combat rules presently can actually do away with the DM, they are so exacting and precise. This displeases me, and I much prefer to also be able to manage a fight without miniatures. I prefer to retain some control over what's happening in the field. The current rules encourage, nay, demand rules-lawyering and min/maxing of characters.

But mostly, I miss:

"Igor the Brute, 5th level fighter, 37 HP, Str 16, Dmg +1, Long Sword and 10GP in pouch".

I think I wouldn't have the time to design any kind of adventure using the current rules.

Having said this, I recognize 3rd Ed has a brilliantly designed edition. I love some of the books. I loved some ideas and rules from 2Vd edition, back then. For instance, cleric customization. Categorizing creatures and weapons into Size categories. Better monster descriptions. Etc.

Similarly, I like some of the stuff in 3rd. Even better monster descriptions. Better spell descriptions and categorizations. Some combat rules. Etc. I find that I frequently refer to 3rd if I need to adjudicate some difficult ruling, or if I need to clarify some issue before rolling.

But I wish to point out that attacks of opportunity actually appeared in 1st edition: characters fleeing opponents by turning their backs give their opponents a free attack. 2nd edition expanded this in Combat & Tactics book, without going overboard like 3rd ( ).

 

[Spell]

Overall they are vaguely similar games with very different feels. My choice of which to use is based on what feel I want for that game.

can you speculate on this? i'm interested to hear other people's opinion.

 

[Reynard]

This thread inspired me to read through my 2E core books again and the thing that really caught me was how much more I like NWPs than the integrated skill system of 3.x. In 2E, all of a class' important or archtypical abilities were built right into the class. There was no way to be a "sub-par" fighter or theif barring a very low Prime stat. But it was also easy to customize your character as the "woodsy fighter" or "streetwise rogue" or whatever by taking just a couple of NWPs.

 

[jeffh]

But mostly, I miss:

"Igor the Brute, 5th level fighter, 37 HP, Str 16, Dmg +1, Long Sword and 10GP in pouch".

While it's true that 3E, particularly high-level 3E, goes too far in the opposite direction, I was never satisfied with this. There's got to be a middle ground there, and it looks like 4E is trying its best to find it.

 

[Lanefan]

i've never met anyone whose campaign allowed more than a character per player.

You have now. Well, electronically, anyway.

As for the other issue that's come up, of human-vs.-non-human balancing in 1-2e, I long ago allowed anyone in my 1e games to multiclass regardless of race; and capped everyone at two classes, max. I also put some restrictions on class abilities if you aren't single-class (I don't like multi-class characters on principle), and the end result - while not perfect - is at least vaguely playable.

There's other in-game ways to encourage people to play humans, but they depend on the setting and aren't for everyone. Example is have the game set in a human-dominated society where non-humans are distrusted, or shunned, or even stoned or worse, by the locals in every town they ever visit....

Lanefan

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

what puzzles me is how you (and other posters, to be fair) seem to have so many problems with simply admitting that different people might have a different mindset, that different games have different need, and that personal experiences play a fundamental role in shaping one's perception of the game.

It could be one or more of three things:
(1) I live in an edgy pre-pyschotic rage and I am likely to go postal at any moment.
(2) I can get my dander up about certain issues more than is really necessary.
(3) You should worship every word I say. Bow before me!

I think it is probably somewhere between 2 and 3. You may choose to disagree, but be careful, just in case it is number 1.

I do not believe I have dissed personal preference stated as personal preference.

I have been a bit aggressive with what I perceive as personal preference dressed up in a double standard and illogical handwaving, stated a broad general truth.

are you? what is your point? that everyone should play 3e because it's so much better than OD&D, AD&D, AD&D2nd edition, Hackmaster, C&C and so on? i'm honestly puzzled.

I believe that there are legitimate reasons to prefer other games. But I do not believe the Curse of Integration is real -- that is a bit of an axe to grind for me. And I have trouble respecting the implication that the Integration Police busted down someone's door one dark and stormy game night, put a gun to the DM's head, and forced that DM to make a poor decision.

I have come to understand that 3e is indeed on the rules heavy sides in a few areas for a some DMs who were successful with previous editions.

I give many kudos to Gothmog. While I am not persuaded by his post, he was very informative such that I might begin to understand his mindset.

I also give kudos to Lanefan for admitting he is using a double-standard. That he believes his double-standard is justified is a secondary issue. Most people recoil from that logical conclusion, as it might be construed as impugning their judgment, and start babbling about how integrating rules is such a horrible thing in some vague hope I will not notice they are babbling.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

No, I'm recognizing that 3e had (in theory) superior professional designers backed by loads of market research and in-game experience, that 1e and 2e didn't have. So yes, I'm going to judge 3e by a higher standard; and 4e higher yet.

I do not think this double-standard is justified. IMHO.

1e was one of the first to be so ambitious. I may criticize it, but I actually cut it a lot of slack (although I understand I might not sound like I do sometimes).

IMO 3e is the game that 2e theoretically could have been, the sole exception being the OGL. There are no basic mechanical concepts in 3e that were not available for borrowing from other games in the late 80s. I am skeptical of the implication that a "mere" 14+ years of roleplaying game design in the industry made highly competent game designers unavailable.

If 2e is weak that is because of a business decision to be timid or not bother trying very hard. Now that may well have been the wise business decision. Or not. But it was a choice, not a logical necessity.

Furthermore, there were a lot of low hanging fruit for fixing in 1e that could have been fixed in 2e. Even if it were unrealistic (or undesirable) to have made the whole trip to 3e, going 25% of the way would not have been very difficult and been a big help. So many things could have been simplified.

Perhaps it would be logical to judge 2e by a far harsher standard than 1e or 3e?