D&D 3E/3.5 AD&D 2nd vs 3.5

[Jackinthegreen]

For the record, I've only ever played 3.5, although I do have several 3.0 books on PDF.

That said, I've noticed many people play games based on numbers. 3.x is no exception since it gave numbers to everything and its dog. At the same time though, it does help to know that there is almost guaranteed to be an official number to use instead of pulling something out of one's nether regions. For a numbers guy like me, it's kinda fun to go through the splatbooks and munchkinize a bit. That said, having a purposeful build hardly means anything if you don't play the game instead of crunch numbers. As a Cleric sure my character has spells that can trivialize encounters, but I choose not to use that kind of cheese to make things more fun for everyone overall. By its definition a game is meant to have fun with after all.

I guess a similar reason some people like 3.0 is the vast differences between class power.

And now all I can think of is a bit of number-crunching someone did showing that a standard house cat will win against a level 1 Wizard 71% of the time. Something is slightly off there.

 

[Dandu]

Not really.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

3.x gave birth to rules lawyers

Hah. Hahah. Hahahahahahahhahahah.

No.

 

[Jimlock]

Hah. Hahah. Hahahahahahahhahahah.

No.

Laugh all you want... still, this is how I, PERSONALLY, experienced the evolution of the game.

Again, as I remember things, people were not trying to find loopholes back then, simply because there were no loopholes to be found. The entire system was one giant loophole and the DM had to be the one to make most, if not all, of the peculiar decisions. Clearly, the DM had more responsibilities than he has today. Rule 0 was far more important back then, thus play moved faster, scenes/encounters were more cinematic, and storytelling was more dominant.

Ofcourse, If the DM was an assh**e, you were in a world to suffer.


In order to be lawyers, there have to be laws, aka rules.

3.x brought forth a great system, very concrete, leaving far less things to DM adjudication. For most of the things a PC wants to do there is an answer, if you are in the know.
This concrete system lifted off the DMs' hands a great deal of responsibility, yet at the same rule 0 lost much of its strength, because the actual rules were far better written and could answer most questions.

People who want to break the game is nothing new. The've existed forever, in any game across any culture. Still, breaking the game when the system is far more concrete, is obviously more difficult, and it requires a certain expertise to do it.

Again, lawyers, exist because of laws. In an ancient tribe there were no lawyers, because the shaman made most of the calls. Nowadays, we need lawyers in order to navigate around the system around as, which is evidently... pretty complicated, even if it is/looks fairer.

AD&D is that ancient tribe. 3.x is the modern world.

Therefore, rules-lawyers came into existence in order to navigate around this great, new, yet complicated system. Others to cheat, others to understand, others to stop those who cheat, others who simply enjoy rules.

Again, that's how I've experienced the game up until now.

Got the joke now?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Laugh all you want... still, this is how I, PERSONALLY, experienced the evolution of the game.

That's great and all, but it doesn't mean that your experience matches reality.

Rules lawyers existed long before 3E was a twinkle in WotC's eyes. While you, personally, may not have seen any, that doesn't mean that they did not exist.

 

[Dandu]

Got the joke now?

A joke ceases to be funny once you have explained it.

Granted, it was not funny before you explained it either, so I guess no harm has been done.

 

[Greg K]

I was responding to the last thing you were talking about, which was if the text on rule zero was left out of the 3.5 PHB.

My apologies then for my response. I kept getting distracted by Deadliest Warrior.

 

[Arrowhawk]

In order to be lawyers, there have to be laws, aka rules.

Jimlock, you are smart enough to know you can't win a BB argument by being correct or accurate. It's all about how many friends you have who instinctively want to dogpile on anyone who disagrees with you.

I think a better word for what happened in 1e and 2e was politicking. I think we all agree that people argued about rules since the game first came out, but you're using the word "lawyering" to make a technical distinction that is being ignored by the others.

Don't sweat it.

 

[billd91]

Both 2e and 3.5 have good points to them. I generally prefer 3.5 to 2e (though now, that's more like preferring PF to 2e) because I like the skill system, feats, and the grouping of saves into 3 categories. I do like that 3.5 presented a more robust overall structure for resolving character actions. On the down side, I think the focus on individual, board-based tactics started getting out of control.

But 2e, I think, does a better job of balancing casters and non-casters with its action and initiative system and many saving throw values (though I'm no fan of the 5 categories and some deficient values). I also like the modifications to combat proficiencies presented in Complete Fighter's Handbook. They add texture without being excessively tactical or build-oriented.

And, yes, there were rule lawyers before 3rd edition. We even called them that.

 

[Dandu]

Jimlock, you are smart enough to know you can't win a BB argument by being correct or accurate. It's all about how many friends you have who instinctively want to dogpile on anyone who disagrees with you.

That makes my accomplishments all the more confounding, as I have won arguments by being correct and accurate when the majority of the boards have disliked me.