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

[Sitara]

Flipping through my Ad&D 2E stuff I realize just how elegant some of the things used to be (and some un-elegent things: THAC0 I am looking at you)

For instance, the Non-Weapon Profiency system of 2E has some simple appeal over 3E's skill systm. In 2E you just take a proficiency and are done with it; your character knows that. How good he is at it depends on level and roleplaying, you don't have to do extensive number crunching every level. 3E's skill system though, can be a nightmare. Especially when making high level pc's.

3E's feats though, are a definate improvement over the proficiencies.

I also like how 2E comat's were less overpowered, and more deadly. Everyone had far fewer hitpoints, char death was at 0, and some monster abilities were brutally damaging. The system also relied far less on magic items at higher levels than 3E.

I also really like how 2E monsters had morale! I ave no idea why they removed it in 3E.

Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?

 

[Psion]

For instance, the Non-Weapon Profiency system of 2E has some simple appeal over 3E's skill systm. In 2E you just take a proficiency and are done with it; your character knows that. How good he is at it depends on level and roleplaying, you don't have to do extensive number crunching every level.

I didn't consider that a good thing. I think that if you are going to have a system for skills, it should tell you, of all things, how good you are.

The thing with the NWPs is that one slot got took you from 0 to ability score+/-, but each slot after that was a crawl. Most players didn't find the skill-like NWPs worth it past 1 or 2 and most spent their NWPs on the more feat-like ones.

I really quite strongly prefer skills & feats to NWPs.

I also like how 2E comat's were less overpowered, and more deadly. Everyone had far fewer hitpoints, char death was at 0, and some monster abilities were brutally damaging. The system also relied far less on magic items at higher levels than 3E.

I always found the system petered off after 10th level; great dragons and balors seemed simple at those levels. I find that 3e scales much better.

I also really like how 2E monsters had morale! I ave no idea why they removed it in 3E.

THAT I agree with!

 

[WayneLigon]

The system also relied far less on magic items at higher levels than 3E.

In some ways it was far more reliant, since there are a ton of monsters at higher levels that require a certain level of magic weapon to even effect them. If you don't have a +3 weapon against some creatures, you do no damage. With 3E's DR system, even if you don't have the appropriate weapon then you can still do some damage.

Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?

I think 3E was such an improvement that it's the reason we still have a D&D today. Without 3E, the big-boy FRPG on the block would be Exalted.

 

[glass]

For instance, the Non-Weapon Profiency system of 2E has some simple appeal over 3E's skill systm. In 2E you just take a proficiency and are done with it; your character knows that. How good he is at it depends on level and roleplaying,

How good you are depends on your ability score. Neither your leve nor roleplaying have anything to do with it.

The system also relied far less on magic items at higher levels than 3E.

That's because the system (and I use the term loosely) completely fell apart at high levels.

I also really like how 2E monsters had morale! I ave no idea why they removed it in 3E.

Because it was a very complicated way of deciding something that is generally pretty obvious?

Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?

Yeah. Half-elf mage/clerics not sucking. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Flipping through my Ad&D 2E stuff I realize just how elegant some of the things used to be (and some un-elegent things: THAC0 I am looking at you)

Hehe. THAC0 wasn't as bad as people make it out to be. It's simple math, after all. That being said, I prefer the Base Attack Bonus mechanic in 3e. Roll a d20, add a modifier. Easy peasy.

For instance, the Non-Weapon Profiency system of 2E has some simple appeal over 3E's skill systm. In 2E you just take a proficiency and are done with it; your character knows that. How good he is at it depends on level and roleplaying, you don't have to do extensive number crunching every level. 3E's skill system though, can be a nightmare. Especially when making high level pc's.

3E's feats though, are a definate improvement over the proficiencies.

The 4e designers have commented on how 3e's skill system has the problem of characters either being Jack-of-all-trades or min/maxing with skill ranks. It's a lot of number crunching, especially on higher levels. 2e's problem, though, was that it was really hard to improve at a skill.

I'm really liking the Star Wars Saga Edition skills (presuming they will be used for 4e as well). Your level factors in, taking away the need for skill ranks. Yet you can specialize to a certain degree as well so that your numbers aren't all the same. Want to be a really great pilot? Well, just be trained in that skill and take skill focus, and you're the best of the best.

Feats are a fantastic idea to add to the D&D game. It allows for a certain level of customization. I'm not sure that they're used the way they were meant. While every character is supposed to be different, how many fighters take the same groupings of feat trees? This is why I like True20's feat system. It takes out a lot of prerequisites, thereby allowing for greater customization.

I also like how 2E comat's were less overpowered, and more deadly. Everyone had far fewer hitpoints, char death was at 0, and some monster abilities were brutally damaging. The system also relied far less on magic items at higher levels than 3E.

I thought death in 2e was at -10 as well. That's how we always did it in the games I played. *scratches head*

I would say that I liked 2e's combat better, though my version was probably a bit house ruled. Very freeform. I hated weapon speed, though.

I really dislike the focus on tactical combat in d20. It's too rigid. 4e is going to have movement in squares. Now, I don't normally like that, but I came across one great advantage recently. I'm no good at determining distance, so that would help to determine that. So I'm going to give it a chance. I don't care for attacks of opportunity, myself. I have had mostly bad experiences with that rule, including a character (a psion) who couldn't act in a round because he was being attacked.

I also really like how 2E monsters had morale! I ave no idea why they removed it in 3E.

I kinda like morale, but it seems to me that it's much easier to ask what the monster would do. If a kobold's buddies are all dead and he's the only one left, he's going to run away. If the opponent is a dragon, he's not going anywhere. Just use your best judgment and you're fine.

Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?

That is a tricky question. There is no doubt in my mind that 3e saved D&D from extinction. I think it has been good for the hobby in general. I think mechanically, it is better in several places (though not all).

What I miss from 2e is the flavor and feel. 3e reads like a fantasy technical manual at times. I miss the settings. Truly, that is 2e's greatest legacy, and I have yet to see 3e do as good of a job of it all (though we rocked the house with Dragonlance ). I think 2e had some books that were better than the 3e counterparts. The 2e Arms & Equipment Guide is one of my all-time faves. I've heard many people say they preferred the 2e Tome of Magic.

My advice would be to dust off the old 2e books and give the game a whirl again. Compare it to 3e, then see which one you like to play. If it's hard deciding, then I'd recommend looking into Castles & Crusades, which is a nice hybrid of AD&D and d20. You can easily port rules in too, so you can mix up NWPs and feats if you want.

Good luck, and good gaming!

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

I miss nothing about 2e

I miss nothing about 2e because it's the edition I play.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?

Nothing at all, and without a doubt, respectively.

I'm really very fond of many 21st century RPGs, Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition being one of them. I generally find them to be just plain better than the majority of last century's offerings, that I've encountered.

It has been a pleasant surprise, the process of discovering this.

 

[Fifth Element]

I thought death in 2e was at -10 as well. That's how we always did it in the games I played. *scratches head*

Wasn't that the "hovering at death's door" optional rule?

 

[Fifth Element]

Anyhow I was wondering what do you miss from AD&D? Do you think 3E was really an improvement?

The only thing I really miss from 2E was the variety of published settings (though they're easy to adapt to other editions, so yay!). I don't think there are any mechanical bits I prefer over 3E.

 

[Evilhalfling]

2e - the skills were terrible, all apptitude no training. It was one of my favoriate changes.
If you think grappling rules are bad, look at the random grapple table in 2nd - serious suspension of disbelief was needed. Psionics becoming useable for the first time ever was a great change.

I did like the amount of magic items in 2nd better, and the quests necessary for creation,
although HR to tone them down for simple items. One of my first thoughts looking at the 3e PhB was that being able to make wonderous items at 3rd and arms and armour at 4th ment that everyone and thier dog should have large numbers of weak items. Also that since rings were only possible from 12th level casters, they should be as rare as presented by tolkien:
1+3+7+9, only twenty rings on a contient? that seemed about right.

crafting items was a no-win change. I like realistic item creation times in 2nd ed - I assume based on research rather than game balance. Then again who ever had that amount of time? The crafting rules in 3 are just bizzar, but since the time/value balance is fixed you don't have any wierd loopholes.

Still in looking back at some 2nd ed splat books recently - the specialty priests had terrible mechanics, but great flavor. My complete priest still gets mined for ideas.