D Agony of D Feet

[Hairfoot]

To focus on some positives, I rather like these ones:

Long-winded lectures about player greed, unbalanced items "destroying" the game, an entire page and a half on "Super Characters" who will "destroy" your game, etc

As I've said in other threads, it dissapoints me that 3E encourages players to expect loads of treasure and magic items, instead of exercising ingenuity and planning to overcome challenges. As for super characters, flying warlocks with eldritch guns just about fit the bill for me, and I do think those sorts of thing have spoiled the game, if not "destroyed" it.

Armor versus weapon type - a system intended to balanced banded mail, ring mail, bronze chain, and other archaic armor types against other choices!

Bothersome to keep track of in combat, but historically accurate and adds a dimension to equipment that goes beyond price/weight/bonus.

A normal human could expect to die about 1 time in 3 when polymorphed.

Jolly good thing it is, too! Radically and rapidly changing one's form should not be undertaken lightly. Same for teleporting, wishing, and using fireballs in confined spaces.

 

[Drowbane]

- Thieves & Wizard's THACO: hehe Don't forget thieves getting d6 HD.
- Dual classing / Multiclassing: just wonky.
- Monsters as PCs: I played a hell of alot of 2e (not so much 1e)... I don't remember this rule. So guessing it either wasn't in 2e, or each 2e group I was apart of ignored it in favor of fun.
- Long-winded lectures...: ignored. 2e was a very high powered edition as 3e approached, and we took advantage of it. I could make characters in 2e that would blow away anything 3e can produce (short of silly cheese like Pun Pun and the Bucket of Water-mage-thing).
- Oh, yes. Minimum ability scores: I saw very few Paladins, but I don't remember Rangers all that hard to acheive. Of course, we were using 4d6 drop the lowest and reroll 1s & 2s. heh.
- Armor versus weapon type: used very breifly before dropping for simplicity. Nobody in any of the groups I was apart of gave a damn enough to remember these for long.
- The suggestion that clerics...: what about it? Sune doesn't tollerate teh fuglies!
- Assassins: I've always agreed with 2e's take here. 3e's PrC is no more (or less) an assassin than any other character build that wishes to be considered an assassin.
- Build-your-own-class: 1e or 2e versions (skills and powers and... what was that a DMG-thing? hell if I remember). Both completely broken.
- High level characters / wishes: whats a high level character? Oh, you mean those guys who take 10yrs real time to get? Meh.
- Polymorph / humans: as it should be! Dittos to old skool Haste taking a year off of your life and other odd-ball balancing for spells. Removing those in 3e is probably why 3.5 thought it necessary to neuter Haste, Polymorph, and other old spells (the above mentioned teleport, wish, fireball.... and lightning bolt. who doesn't miss "Bouncing Lightning Bolts"?!).

 

[rossik]

monster as pc:
did u mean by the complete humanoids handbook?

 

[Quasqueton]

war of words between 1e/2e and 3e "sides."

I don't see anyone going at AD&D1/2 from the D&D3 side. I see a GURPS player ragging on AD&D1/2.

AD&D made my head hurt and drove me to GURPS

Just because someone attacks AD&D1/2 doesn't make them a D&D3 player, just as someone attacking D&D3 doesn't make them a AD&D1/2 player. If someone wants to "fight back", just make sure you fire on the appropriate "enemy".

Quasqueton

 

[GAAAHHH]

As someone who had a lot of fun in 2nd edition AD&D, and who also likes GURPS and D&D 3rd edition, I will say that they all have their strong-points and weak-points.

 

[Imp]

Well, the minimum attribute business in 1e/2e wound up veering pretty directly to MAD in 3e classes, though I suppose the druid escaped unscathed. (Bah.) Anyway, given the history, I'm wondering if people who roll for stats in 3e ever implement minimum attribute schemes for any of the classes they use? Monks and paladins and to a lesser extent rangers could benefit from that sort of thing, maybe, and be more "special."

Just throwing that out there.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

Weapon Speed. Some people liked it. I thought it was clunky.

2e and 1e initiative. Didn't the combat rounds last like a whole minute, yet your actions took all of about 3-6 seconds? Don't miss that at all. And I never did figure out the whole casting time system with how many segments each spell took. Or maybe I did and I've repressed that undesirable memory.

 

[Tharkun]

I suppose that I didn't care enough and just wanted to play & have fun.

 

[Wik]

Yeah, there were some rules problems with 2e. No doubt about it. Still... I liked the game, and still do (more or less).

Druids were a lot more interesting in 2e, for sure. Bards, as well (for a long time, I played in a group of three PCs, and two were bards). Halflings, while not better rules-wise, definately came off as being "Cooler" to me (I'm known as a halfling lover, and my favourite character was a halfling).

Mostly, though, I liked the "method of play" that 2e pushed, the sort of "GM as storyteller" type of play that really got us involved in the game. That feel doesn't really come across the same in 3e, and it's something I sort of miss.

So, yeah, you can point out all of the flaws in 2e, and I'd fully agree with you. But I think I've personally had more rules-problems with 3e. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Melan]

I suppose that I didn't care enough and just wanted to play & have fun.

What the guy with the penguin said.