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

[NewJeffCT]

Actually, you required ambidexterity to use weapons of equal length. So, no, you didn't need that.

But, my point is, I didn't even need a strength bonus to kill the troll. Your example needs a 17 strength and two confirmed crits from x3 crit weapons and max damage on six die rolls and the troll STILL isn't dead. It still takes two rounds to kill the troll. I just needed to hit three times and I can potentially kill an average troll. Is that a stark enough difference?

I would point out that the second round is STILL one round. The troll goes from full hit points to dead in one round. I remember playing 2e as a DM and having to max out the hit points of every monster just to make them last more than a round or two. That's kinda my point though. This is a first level character. A troll is one of the larger monsters in 2e. It's not like 3e where a troll is a low level opponent meant for 4-6th level parties. Going through the MM, a troll is one of the bigger monsters in 2e. It's certainly not meant to be a 1st level monster.

As far as 18 Str fighters go, I never, ever saw a fighter played that didn't have an 18 strength. Not once. I'm sure it happened in other groups, but, it never happened in any group I played in. I'm pretty sure there was lots of fudging of die rolls going on. I know that there was. But, it was pretty common, IME.

According to the the Complete Fighter's Handbook, the best you could do without ambidexterity is to be 0 for your primary weapon and -2 for your offhand weapons - and, that is from devoting 2 WP slots to 2 weapon style - one to get the style, which brings you to -2/-4 and then another to specialize in the style. If you spend a WP slot to become ambidextrous, then you won't be able to become specialized in the long sword until level 4, as you need 2 WP slots to specialize in a weapon. The relevant text is below:

If you devote a weapon proficiency slot to style specialization with Two-Weapon
Style, you get two important benefits. First, your attack penalty drops; before, it was a
–2 with your primary weapon and –4 with your secondary, but with Specialization in
Two-Weapon Style it becomes 0 with your primary weapon and a –2 with your
secondary weapon. (If you're already ambidextrous, as per "Off-Hand Weapons Use,"
above, that penalty is 0 with primary weapon and 0 with secondary weapon.)

and, just to have a chance to land 3 blows against the troll means you're going to have to survive six attacks from the troll, with the claws having a 50-50 chance of killing an average first level fighter, and the bite having a 75% chance to kill. (Not sure if it was rules as written, but PCs that had an extra attack in melee always took that extra attack at the end of the round.) Sure, it can happen, but it's only slightly more possible than a 3.5E fighter rolling four crits in a row (the most I've seen is 5 in a row.)

We made all our character creation rolls on the table, as well as our to hit/damage rolls (the DM made his to hit/damage rolls on the table as well). So, no fudging happened.

 

[GreyLord]

Speak for yourself. 1e initiative was wonky when it came to surprise, but 2e initiative was pretty clear cut. I mean, I outlined all the initiative rules a couple of posts back and it took about two sentences. I've never heard of anyone modding 2e initiative. Why would you? It's a pretty simple system.

And, as far as 4e goes, I'd point out that 99% of 4e actually appears in 3e in some fashion. Later supplements for 3e were the building blocks for 4e. If you were playing latter era 3e with latter era books, 4e wasn't much of a jump at all.

I agree. One of the biggest flaws in a lot of people who argue against 4e is saying it is a totally different game than 3.5, which is not exactly true. 4e is basically a 3e/d20 game with a bunch of powers tossed in and a simplified skill system. The basic core of 4e is just about exactly the same as the rest of the D20 games.

The biggest wonkiness of 4e was that the way it was presented was with powers that were not optional. Hence, you had a fighter like 3.5, but now he had all these other options/powers which he could use as desired, per encounter, or daily.

In XP and heart before they got the hybrid rules and crazy races of the PHB3 however, 4e probably had more of the spirit of AD&D than 3e with multiclass being something that you paid for (aka, in older editions you paid for it with limited advancements or max levels, in 4e you had to trade off feats and such), and more in line with classes being classes instead of skill sets.

4e's other major differential was while it still had the same core as 3e (whereas 3e tossed out the core of D&D previous in that it tossed out the entire way Combat really worked prior to that...which for some was a great thing with ascending numbers all over the place instead of some going up and some going down) was how they switched up saves to operates similarly, but based partly on level and as defenses, as well as taking a different approach to HP which was originally introduced in a very similar idea with the D20 Star Wars (though still, slightly different than SWRPG).

I could go on for quite a bit, but in the end, the mechanics of 4e are basically a deriviative of 3e and much more compatible. I actually submitted paperwork and ideas on how to play 4e just like 3e, keeping the main system but abandoning the powers idea...the response that I got back was...if you want to play 4e like 3e...just go play 3e. However, it was close enough that it really didn't need much more than a transition book and you were playing the 4e system but it ran like 3e. It abandoned the power system, but buffed up the feats as 3e instead.

The differences between 2e and 3e are extremely vast, in fact the differences between 1e and 3e are extremely vast. The entire approach was different. I actually find more similarities between PF (which is basically 3e evolved) and 1e as far as the heart and intent than 3e and any of the previous editions of D&D.

That said, I don't think 3e is a bad system at all like some here are incriminating, just a different system with different goals and ideas than what D&D or AD&D had before. I think that same application could be said of 4e, where even if mechanically it was very similar to 3e, the goals and intent of 4e were as vast, if not more vast than the differences of goals between 3e and previous editions of AD&D.

IMO of course.

 

[GreyLord]

This, I think, might have a lot to do with it. I wonder if 4e's transparency has a lot to do with people's reactions to it.

Of course it does. WotC presented 3e as terrible and broken and 4e as the second coming. It should have been obvious that a backlash to that approach was imminent. Apparently, not as obvious to WotC as they continued that line of thought for a while...but putting down a highly popular game system to try to promote your new outing...sometimes not the smartest marketing move in the book.

 

[Ratskinner]

I guess I'm in agreement with this, but I wouldn't characterize it as "sloppy" to "[run] rough-shod over the rules". The point of playing these games is to create your own individual experience. The relative ease of homebrewing and houseruling the rules is a desirable feature.

Sure, that's why I used the quotes. (Although in some cases, I think "sloppy" is very accurate for groups that ignore large sections of the rules and ignore consistency.)

Generally, I find systems like FATE, where I can modify the feel of the genre emulated and stay within the context of the rules as written, to be a better way to handle that desired flexibility. YMMV, especially wrt to play agendas, etc. I mean, if you aren't into the level of abstraction that FATE runs with, then that's not gonna work for you.

 

[Abraxas]

Umm, yes, yes he could.

1st level fighter with specs in longsword and proficiency in short sword, using 2wf from the Complete Fighter (so no attack penalties). No strength bonus.

2e troll has 6d8+6 HP so, 33 on average.

The fighter on the second round attacks three times, doing a total (before strength bonus) of 14+14+8 or 36 points of damage.

Note, I said CAPABLE not that he'd do it every time. Add in an 18 percentile strength (which was pretty much standard for any 2e or 1e fighter I ever saw) and you're whacking that troll like a pinata. That's 45 damage in a single round to a troll with any percentile strength.

How do you get these numbers?
Longsword vs L does 1d12 - ave 6.5
Specialization adds +2 dam for an average of 8.5 - round up to 9
Short Sword vs L does 1d8 - ave 4.5 - round up to 5

Two weapon fighting from Complete Fighter reduces penalties, doesn't eliminate them, so you off hand is at -2 to Attack. He needs a 17 Dex to reduce the penalties to 0 for both hands.

With a THAC0 of 20 vs a Trolls AC 4 the fighter (before any STR Bonus) only hits on a 15 with the longsword and an 18 with the short sword - if both hit he only does 14 points damage and on round two 23 more. Of course the troll has regenerated 3 so he just barely takes him out.

However, between round 1 and 2 the troll (who hits our Splintmail wearing fighter on a 9 or better) has done 14 points to the L1 Fighter who has at most 14 hit points (if the fighter has an 18 Con).

Also, in the second round the Troll attacks between the fighters Longsword attacks so the troll gets another full set of attacks before the final sword blow.

With an 18 STR, 50% of the time the bonus to Att/Dam is +1/+3. With a THAC0 of 20 vs a Trolls AC 4 the fighter now only hits on a 14 with the longsword and an 17 with the short sword. If all attacks hit he does do 20 points the first round and 32 points the second. Bump that STR to 18(00) [something I've only seen rolled legitimately 1 time in all the years we played 1st & 2nd edition] and he hits on an 12 and 15 respectively - hardly Pinata party time - doing an impressive 26 and 35 points damage in rounds 1 and 2 respectively. Yes, that's a lot of damage - but he's still dead before the 2nd round.

But, again, these conversations get so difficult to have because I can't argue against the game you were playing at your table with your set of house rules. I can only talk about what the game actually said.

Yes the fighter is capable of taking out a troll at 1st level, it's just highly unlikely. What makes these conversations so difficult is people taking extreme positions.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The basic core of 4e is just about exactly the same as the rest of the D20 games.

Details matter, even small ones. Humans, after all, share 95%+ of our DNA with Chimpanzees, for instance...

While the similarities between 4Ed and 3.5Ed are there to be seen- as you say, they are obvious if you used some of the last 3.5Ed releases*- the differences are key. AEDU, alignment, cosmology, different PHB1 races & classes, different design underpinnings for certain classes**, multiclassing, a potentially large numbers of buffs & debuffs from any and all characters in a combat (most of which lasted as little as a round)... The list goes on.

(And this is from someone who actually enjoys playing 4Ed.)

I believe I already said it in this thread: I really didn't have a big problem transitioning from 2Ed to 3Ed/3.5Ed; it was but a long hop. But the jump from 3.5Ed to 4Ed was, IME, a long one.







* I absolutely hated ToB, and do not use it.

** good and bad

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]
Well that's an interesting way of putting it.

But the core isn't the same either. The core is the standard modifier, which is a very different approach to basic character advancement. If you look at a 2e fighter's THAC0 advancement and specializations, it's not really all that different when you compare it to a 3e fighter taking Weapon Focus and the like. The wizard also advances at roughly the same rate in both versions. Taking that progression and expanding it to skills and saves was a big change for 3e. However, adding 1/2 level to everything and using nonscaling training bonuses and the like to differentiate characters, and putting saves and attacks and skills on the same progression as attacks, is fundamentally different.

That's not the last 5%.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I didn't say it was.

My point was that, even where great similarity exists (or is possibly only perceived by folks like GreyLord)- even minute changes in key areas can manifest themselves as VAST changes in the way a game plays.

Much like how that small percent difference in Human & Chimp DNA makes for perceptibly similar but vastly different animals.

 

[GreyLord]

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]
Well that's an interesting way of putting it.

But the core isn't the same either. The core is the standard modifier, which is a very different approach to basic character advancement. If you look at a 2e fighter's THAC0 advancement and specializations, it's not really all that different when you compare it to a 3e fighter taking Weapon Focus and the like. The wizard also advances at roughly the same rate in both versions. Taking that progression and expanding it to skills and saves was a big change for 3e. However, adding 1/2 level to everything and using nonscaling training bonuses and the like to differentiate characters, and putting saves and attacks and skills on the same progression as attacks, is fundamentally different.

That's not the last 5%.

4e and 3e use the same ability tables. everything over 11 gives a +1 every two ability points higher.

2e uses a DRASTICALLY different ability table.

4e/3e use the D20 for skills, combat, and intiative on an ascending rate (higher is better).

2e and previous editions did not. In fact, D20 is NOT the base except for combat rolls, and even some of those don't use the D20. It utilizes percentage for thief skills, skills are NOT part of the system but are optional (this is especially true of D&D and AD&D 1e, 2e still labeled them as optional), and hence many times you use an ability check instead of a skill check at DM fiat, and AC and Saves decrease for rolls along with THACO. D&D and AD&D core mechanics were not the unified mechanic of 3e.

3e and 4e both use that core of a unified mechanic which is absent in previous editions. That is the core of the system of D20. When you look at all the D20 games they have certain core items in common, and 3e and 4e share that core, while AD&D, D&D and those editions prior to 3e do not.

The problem people see isn't the core mechanic so much as the presentation. That's why they argue so hard that 4e is different from 3e when in truth, it's not. It's actually really easy for a slight change to 4e (getting rid of powers) and replacing it with their 3e equivalents (better feats and the spell system) to make 4e basically a 3e type game.

The insistence of WotC that 3e was bad bad, and 4e was the new good good, is what made people believe there was a vast difference and all this ridiculous battling between the 3e'ers and 4e'ers. Once you get outside the core (powers, spellcasting, etc) that's when you see many differences.

Heck, even with the different XP advancements both even use a unified XP advancement scheme (just like PF is different, but uses a unified advancement scheme...etc).

I probably find just as many differences between PF and 3e as 4e and PF...the difference between why people accept PF as the continuation of the 3e line though...is it's all in presentation.

(and yes, I am a rabid PF player currently).

 

[billd91]

It is most definitely not just presentation. The power structure is a huge difference in the games. The Healing surge (and its support) is another. Both of those differences are major transformations.