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

[Nellisir]

However, I still saw huge differences in power in 2E across adventuring parties where almost everybody had the same amount of XP.

Having played a svirfneblin cleric/illusionist, I agree.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

+1 to that as well.

 

[Nellisir]

wow, your 2E experiences were way different than mine.

And mine. I've slaughtered parties with a single annis.

 

[Nellisir]

2e has better balance among the classes. There's no tier nonsense that makes the primary casters practically gods while the fighter is rubbish.

Gotta disagree with this. Pre-3e's reliance on XP to "balance" characters was farcical.

Combat's also faster because there's less grid reliance, and hp totals tend to be lower.

Hps were lower; I don't think grid reliance has much to do with combat speed. The ambiguity of where characters were took up a lot of time (I'm close enough to hit him, but not too close. Can I see it? I move a little closer? What do you mean I trigger the trap? I wasn't moving near the trap.)

 

[NewJeffCT]

Gotta disagree with this. Pre-3e's reliance on XP to "balance" characters was farcical.



Hps were lower; I don't think grid reliance has much to do with combat speed. The ambiguity of where characters were took up a lot of time (I'm close enough to hit him, but not too close. Can I see it? I move a little closer? What do you mean I trigger the trap? I wasn't moving near the trap.)

Believe it or not, the same DM I mentioned above being my 2E DM used miniatures less with 3E, especially for the smaller combats. With 2E, we kept the minis on the table on the battlemat, in marching order at all times. With 3E, it was not always the case.

 

[Grazzt]

Again, I have to wonder where your experiences come from.

Fighters are very, very different between 2e and 3e. A 1st level 2e fighter is easily capable of killing trolls in a single round of combat. A 1st level 2e party can take on giants and reasonably expect to win. That's how powerful 2e parties are.

You guys played 2e way differently than we did. No way a 1st-level fighter in 2e could kill a troll in one round. And a 1st-level party taking on a giant is suicide.

A 2e initiative works like this:

Each player declares his action before initiative is rolled. Each player rolls a d10, adds his weapon speed factor, subtracts his Dex bonus and the lowest score goes first. This will be repeated every round of combat.​

In 3e, it works like this:

Each player rolls a d20 and adds his dex modifier. High roll goes first. This will remain static (barring a few exceptions) for the entire combat.​

Note, 4e works exactly the same as 3e here.

We never really used weapon speeds in 1e or 2e, but initiative was never a problem area. Roll the dice. Modify. Done. We rather liked rolling each round. Made combat more chaotic and well...combat-like.

 

[NewJeffCT]

You guys played 2e way differently than we did. No way a 1st-level fighter in 2e could kill a troll in one round. And a 1st-level party taking on a giant is suicide.



We never really used weapon speeds in 1e or 2e, but initiative was never a problem area. Roll the dice. Modify. Done. We rather liked rolling each round. Made combat more chaotic and well...combat-like.

Did you use the segment casting time for spells, though?

 

[Nellisir]

Believe it or not, the same DM I mentioned above being my 2E DM used miniatures less with 3E, especially for the smaller combats. With 2E, we kept the minis on the table on the battlemat, in marching order at all times. With 3E, it was not always the case.

I used a chalkboard.

"Where are you?"
"Behind the statue."
"Which statue?"
"The ugly one. No, not that one, the other one."
"That is the ugly statue."
"Well, the other statue, then."
"The one with the swords?"
"Oh, is that it? I guess, but not too close, just in case it attacks. Maybe like right behind it, but five or ten feet away."
"So here? You can't see from here."
"Well, I would go wherever was best that I could see, but they couldn't see me, and the statue can't get me in case it's evil, but I can still shoot things."

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't think it's the grid, but fear of attacks of opportunity, that slow down 3.x combat. Also buffs - there's a lot more of them used in 3.x - summons, polymorphing, and certain other options that are used more or more complex in 3.x.

I heard AoOs existed in 2e, but I never heard of them while playing, and apparently said rules are optional and in the DMG anyway.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I don't think it's the grid, but fear of attacks of opportunity, that slow down 3.x combat. Also buffs - there's a lot more of them used in 3.x - summons, polymorphing, and certain other options that are used more or more complex in 3.x.

I heard AoOs existed in 2e, but I never heard of them while playing, and apparently said rules are optional and in the DMG anyway.

We used AoOs in 2E, but it was strictly limited to leaving/retreating out of a "threatened" square or hex (we usually used a hex map in 2E). No AoOs for casting or shooting an arrow next to an enemy, but your risk of spell disruption was far greater in 2E than in 3.5E - even 1 point of damage would disrupt level 9 spell. Plus, you had the segment casting times, so if Willy the Wizard started casting his spell on initiative count of 5 and his spell had a 5 segment casting time, he could take damage from anybody from segment 5 through segment 10 while he was "in the act" of casting.

My problem with 3.5E is just the remarkable number of "buffing" and debuffing spells there were - and, all the different types of bonuses to things like AC (armor bonus, shield bonus, natural armor bonus, size bonus or penalty, dex bonus, divine bonus, dodge bonus (usually stacks with other dodge bonuses), deflection bonus, luck bonus, and a few more I'm probably forgetting.) and saving throws, to hit/damage rolls, etc. that you needed advanced excel skills just to track it all (if a spell granting a +4 bonus is dispelled, it could be replaced by a spell that offers a +3 bonus, or an item that offers a +3 bonus, etc)