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

[Hussar]

This description rather obscures what's really going on. A multi-classed character doesn't get the sum of all his levels as his attack matrix column, or to determine his saving throws, or anything like that. For anything that could potentially "stack," the multi-classed character only gets the best of the classes' scores. For hit points, you took the average of all your classes' hit dice.

Casting spells in armor and allowing clerics to use bladed weapons are the primary benefits of multi-classing (in the original AD&D; AD&D Second Edition took away the ability of fighter/mages and the like to cast spells while wearing armor).



This is one reason the weapon vs. armor class table in the first edition is so valuable—it gives you a reason to choose something other than a longsword. Weapon specialization in Unearthed Arcana broke this, and AD&D Second Edition made it worse by loosening the first edition's restriction on using two weapons: daggers and hand axes only.

True, the bonuses didn't stack, but, then again, they didn't need to. Remember, a 3e multiclassed PC is going to be the same total level as everyone else. So, if the party is 8th level, the 2 classed PC is going to be some combination adding to 8.

In 2e, this wasn't true. The two classed PC, because xp generally doubled each level, would only be one level behind the party in each class. You don't need to stack when you're ahead of the rest of the party in levels.

Sure, you might be one level lower than the fighter, but, you got x levels of cleric to make up for it. Take thief/magic user and you're probably gaining levels faster than the paladin or ranger. Yes, you got average hp's between the two classes, but, that didn't really make a significant difference since you always get at least one hp every time you gain a level. Being a 8/9/9 PC, meant you had at least 26 hp's, max for the wizard, not bad for the thief, and about average for the fighter. Depends on what you compare to.

But, compared to the single classed fighter, your THAC0 was only one point down, and your average hp's might be five or six points lower. Not bad for gaining all the abilities of a thief and a wizard as well. Yup, you couldn't wear armor, but, bracers of armor fixed that problem. And rings of protection and cloaks of protection stacked. Tack on your own Stoneskin spell and you're good to go.

 

[Storm Raven]

I completely disagree. NWPs were sufficiently broad and generally useful and easy (unless you took one based on one of your low stats, but who did that?) that characters became mechanically very useful once they were introduced. You didn't need to be a ranger to be a "woodsy fighter" -- you just needed a few decent stats and a couple NWPs.

The 1e/2e NWP system (yes, it was introduced in 1e, check your 1e Dungeoneer's Survival Guide) was weak in execution. There was basically only one level of skill - the one you got by investing a single NWP slot in the skill, because investing more was simply not worth bothering with. The skills were poorly designed, and for the most part, not very useful. And they did little to change the fact that 95% of the information on a 1e/2e character sheet amounted to "how good is this character when fighting".

1E certainly -- but that is the way the game is designed. Role-playing, exploration and all that stuff are considered *player skills* and only the stuff that can't be gagued on player skill get longwinded mechanical explanations.

But that's not really relevant to the point I was responding to. The assertion was made that 3e characters are "all about combat" and 1e/2e characters weren't, somehow. But the actual content of the 1e/2e character sheets was pretty much almost all combat related, while the non-combat aspects were either poorly defined or nonexistent. The 3e system has more and better tools as part of the rule set for defining a character with respect to non-combat elements, which makes the accusation that 3e characters are supposedly encouraged by the system to be combat monsters and nothing else.

 

[Darth Cyric]

2e:

+ Specialty priests and Spheres. Not perfect, but much more flavorful than 3e Cleric Domains. A more polished rendition of Spheres for 3e would've been a good check on the 3e Cleric's power.

+ Fighters (and Paladins and Rangers) really were the best melee classes. By far, actually. They weren't flashy, but they got the job done with the best chances of hitting and being the only classes that could attack multiple times per round without having super-high Dexterity to dual-wield.

- Thac0 and AC. Sure, it was an easy concept to learn, but that still doesn't mean it wasn't counterintuitive.

- Magic item creation.

- The way ability scores worked. Exceptional strength figures, not getting bonuses unless your scores were REALLY high. Those didn't exactly make any sense.

3e:

+ Base Attack Bonuses and Armor Classes made sense intuitively.

+ Unified experience tables.

+ Skills and Feats.

- CoDzillas in general.

- Actually, make that any full caster in general. They could do it all: Melee, play the party Defender role, make up for the Rogue's skills with spells, you name it. Other classes were rendered useless by comparison.

- How utterly weak the once high-rolling Paladins and Rangers had become, even compared to Fighters.

Overall, 3e feels like a lot of great ideas poorly executed. Still, I'll give it credit for breathing life into D&D.

 

[Spell]

It's no myth. But asserting that it is 100% perfectly balanced is erroneous.

that's what i meant by "balanced". to me, at least, balanced is 100% balanced. i have no problem agreeing that 3e is much more balanced than previous editions. but, in my experience on these boards, some people have problems agreeing that "balanced" doesn't necessarily mean 100% so. and a class or feat that is balanced at one game table might be unbalanced at another.

that's all. i wasn't being dismissive and i'm sorry if it came out that way.

 

[Spell]

No, 2e relied upon certain assumptions, but they just didn't bother to tell you what those assumptions were. Effectively, you were left with no guidance as to what the designers thought PCs would be equipped with when they designed monsters, adventures and other supplements.

i appreciate this point of view, but, in my experience the theoretical negative effect of this lack of guidance had a very good practical effect.

namely, the published adventures (even those in dungeon) didn't assume that your group was made of X, Y, and Z. they told you what the assumptions were, in phrases like: "this adventure is designed from a party of 23 total level. a wizard with access to fire spells and magical weapons +1 or higher are needed for the successful completion of the adventure".

if my group was more or less like that, cool, i would have run the adventure. if not, i just had to look around to find another published source that had assumptions that more or less matched those made in my current campaign.

also, if the designer put 21 magical items in the treasure of the dragon, and my campaign had little or no magic, i could have just erased the magical items from the hoard, and run the next adventure with no actual problems.



the clear statement that players of level X should have Y gp worth of magical item means that if your game does not conform to that model (either because you want a magically rich world, or because you want a nitty gritty "no magic" sword and sorcery campaign) you are pretty much out of luck with published scenarios. it also means that you can't publish yours. and, finally, when you seek help on boards like these, you always find the random smartass that asks you why in the world you have to change the game assumptions, acting as if you were personally insulting the game designers. threads do tend to go downhill from there, at times, and it's just sad.

so, yes, in theory it's great to know that the average game has this average amount of magic or what not. in practice, if the published products only cater for the "average" market (because it's the most representative), it means that you are left on your own if you want a different gaming experience.



please notice how this attitude is also present in game worlds design. Rich Baker saying: "If we said that the Blood War had never happened in FR (and I'm not saying we would), what canon would be violated? There are a couple of plane descriptions in the FRCS and FR Player's Guide that would be inaccurate, but is there something major besides those?", to me, means that this is not *my* game anymore. i am supposed to follow what's on the book. if i had decided to play a number of campaigns revolving on the Blood War in 3e forgotten realms, i would be well angry at the comment. (well, i suppose that since they are changing so much anyway, it wouldn't make that big a difference...)


i ran a poll some weeks ago asking what TSR/ wizards setting people loved, and invariably, the original editions of the settings received more votes of the "revised, because we decided to advance the metaplot to cash in some money" versions.

this, to me, says that people don't want to play in wizards' game worlds. they want to play their own modified versions, without being afraid that someone tomorrow will come and say: "oh, well, we decided to erase this continent. there was little reference in the published material, so it doesn't make any difference, right?"

why should that be different, when it come to rule systems?!?

 

[SuStel]

In 2e, this wasn't true. The two classed PC, because xp generally doubled each level, would only be one level behind the party in each class. You don't need to stack when you're ahead of the rest of the party in levels.

This is another thing that AD&D Second Edition broke. In the first edition, odds are your elven fighter/magic-user would be limited to level 5/9. In the second edition, an elven fighter/mage could get to 12/15 — not much of a restriction.

So originally, an elven fighter/magic-user could more or less keep up with his human counterparts' hit dice, but could never do better than 5th level spells.

Let us also not forget about the level training requirements. Remember that according to the DMG, the referee is supposed to grade each player's performance on each adventure. When it's time to level up, your average grade determines how long and expensive your level training will be.

A single-classed human has to worry about only one thing. A fighter only has to be a good fighter to level up quickly. That elven fighter/magic-user has to be both a good fighter and a good magic-user, or else it'll cost him more time and money. Pity the half-elven cleric/fighter/magic-user for the strictures placed on him!

To summarize: multi-classed demi-humans aren't meant to be a free lunch. They're supposed to be challenging to play.

I see little point in that most common activity of "balancing" each combination with each other. Each has points in its favor, and each requires that you earn your keep to advance. If a referee has a problem with too many demi-humans in the party, he just has to say "no demi-humans." Somehow, however we do it, we AD&Ders still manage to have fun games.

 

[Spell]

And really, given the lame skill system used in 1e/2e, the quantified elements of most characters were pretty much mostly about how awesome they were in a fight. The level of non-combat usefulness of a 1e/2e character was mostly off the sheet roleplaying, which is independent of system.

whereas in 3e...

 

[Spell]

GIt is okay to apply different standards in my book if one is open about it, and not apparently pretending otherwise.

but, you see, that's the gist of the matter. everyone will undoubtely have their own specific point of view, and might not be aware that other people with whom they are discussing have a completely different set of assumptions.

I try to judge 2e and 3e by the same standard. I judge 1e by a different, more lenient standard. IMO that is fair and appropriate.

and, from your point of view, from you expectations at the game table, that is completely fair. but then you have to appreciate that other people might have different priorities.

in my case: i wanted 3e to be still very much compatible with older editions. such was not the case (despite the designers claiming that the conversion work wouldn't have been too bad... i didn't like that kind of hype. anyway...).

given that the system was quite different, i would have appreciated a lot if there still was leeway to run the game with the same attitude i had before. i am sorry, that is not the case in my experience. and, what's more, in other people's experience, too. it's not a universal thing, but you have to appreciate that there is a number of people that, for good or bad, say that 3e just plays differently in many many many ways.

now, given that there are systems on the market in which i can pretty much ignore a subsystem and still play "by the book" without substantial headaches, i can't see why 3e wasn't designed that way. i don't see why, if 99% of the gamers like tactical complexities, i have to be stuck with that... especially when it was *not* the case in previous editions!!!

so, in my view, 3e has the following GREAT flaws:
1. not compatible with 25+ years of game material by TSR, Mayfair, Judges guild and other publishers (in u.s., u.k. or other nations).
2. assumes that since the majority of the gamers plays in a certain way, everyone else will conform, or move to another system.
3. (not really a direct consequence of 2, but somewhat connected) needs a LOT of dedication and time to modify to conform to my desires and game needs.
4. rules heavy, especially in combat.
5. written in dry and uncompelling prose.

ps: as an example, hackmaster is rule heavy as hell, but is compatible with older editions. and you can easily ignore the rules you don't want to follow.
on the other hand, castles and crusades is rules light, compatible with older editions pretty much without conversions and with d20 products with some thinkering (which is invariably less than what a conversion between 2e and 3e would ask for).

so, compatibility and felxibility are possible in today's market. it's a design choice not to include them in 3e.

 

[SuStel]

The 1e/2e NWP system (yes, it was introduced in 1e, check your 1e Dungeoneer's Survival Guide) was weak in execution. There was basically only one level of skill - the one you got by investing a single NWP slot in the skill, because investing more was simply not worth bothering with. The skills were poorly designed, and for the most part, not very useful.

I think you've missed the point of the non-weapon proficiencies. They were never meant to be "very useful." They were supposed to supplement an adventurer's primary skills. Unfortunately, most people made the same assumption you have, and their importance was blown completely out of proportion.

Ultimately, I consider non-weapon proficiencies in AD&D to be a failed set of rules. I think they worked fairly well in the Survival Guides, provided you use those rulebooks only when concentrating on adventures that deal directly with the subject matter—e.g., adventures that focus primarily on survival in the wilderness. But once they were generalized in the minds of players, and referees started requiring their use in standard adventuring situations ("You can't do this unless you have the non-weapon proficiency"), they were overloaded and didn't work properly.

I agree with you concerning improving an already-known proficiency: not worth the slot.

And they did little to change the fact that 95% of the information on a 1e/2e character sheet amounted to "how good is this character when fighting".

They weren't supposed to change that. I disagree with your percentage, however. Looking at one of the "goldenrod" AD&D Fighter-Ranger-Paladin character sheets, I estimate about 70% of the front is applicable to combat. Other details include biographical information, movement and skills, spells (not all of which have to do with combat), and some miscellaneous information. The entire back has little to do with combat, beyond the equipment you possess to conduct it and the allies you have to help you with it.

 

[Spell]

YNow, you know what the assumptions are, so you can start playing with them right away if you want to.

what if i don't? any clear path to follow?