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

[Geron Raveneye]

To answer the original question, I think 3E is a mixed bag when compared to 2E. I like the saving throws (they are more intuitive than the original set), the standardized system for problem resolution (I never had problems with the diverse subsystems in 2E, but I believe from what I read on various forums that many people prefer only having to add numbers), the feats (back when there was only the PHB, and the Feat Explosion hadn't happened yet) and the idea of Prestige Classes.

What I miss from 2E was definitely Specialty Priests with their Spheres of Influence. Having individualized spell lists enabled me to allow priests spontaneous casting, since they couldn't call down divine doom on their enemies on a whim if it wasn't on their list in the first place.
I also miss the independence of the individual subsystems from each other. 3E interconnected a LOT of the stuff, so if you yank Attacks of Opportunity (for example), you don't just have to check the Combat Section for alterations, but also the Feats, the Classes (for probable class ability obsoleteness) and if you're unlucky enough even the spells/special abilities.

There's more on both sides, this is just meant to demonstrate that both versions had a lot of good and a lot of bad going for them. What I can't understand (as usual) is that any discussion of different versions of D&D/AD&D turns sour after a while. It's like people desperately NEED to fence themselves in and declare their area the BEST, even though we ALL are fenced in on the "RPG geek" corral already. :\

 

[Voadam]

my mistake, then. i stopped buying 3e items when i got the disappointment that was the epic level handbook. did they suppressed the expected health and expected magic item power level from the game?

No, they changed DR in 3.5 in general to be lower amounts than in 3.0 so that if you don't have the right weapon you can usually still do some damage, particularly with power attack, sneak attacks, crits, or big two handed weapons with a lot of strength.

They also changed it from scaling along Material/+1/+2/+3 etc. to being entirely type of weapon specific, either magic or silver or aligned or whatever. At the top end is DR epic for requiring artefact weapons to bypass pitfiend and balor DR.

Anybody with a +1 weapon can bypass the DR of any creature with DR/Magic in 3.5 but still needs a silver weapon to bypass the DR of a werewolf, a +6 epic holy cold iron sword will still have 5 or 10 points of damage taken off each blow against a lycanthrope.

that looks like a good quick fix.

Thanks, its worked well for my game so far.

what do you mean? i honestly don't follow.

Want a grittier crits system for AD&D? Use Rollmaster.

Want a grittier fantasy AD&D where players don't become superhero fantasy? Use GURPS

Want to have active defenses in your AD&D and a few more race/class/magic options? Use Palladium

Want it to be closer to medieval europe with magic and a more developed magic system? Use Ars Magica

That's similar to in the 3e era

Want high fantasy D&D without spellcasting and magic items? Use Iron Heroes.

Want Gritty Hyperborean style D&D? Use Conan.

Want more flexibility in spellcasting in your D&D and an end to the divine arcane line for magic? Use Arcana Evolved.

Want to get rid of AoO legacy D&D class structures and hp? Use True20.

 

[Voadam]

can i remove skills and feats in their entirety? can i pick up, i don't know, OD&D skill system and put it in without too much hassle? i don't think so.

I'd suggest you can.

Consequences of no skills: DM has to adjudicate things people used skills for before and classes with good skill lists or good number of skill points lose a little edge while poor skill list and point classes (like fighters) lose a minor balancing weakness. Have to figure out resolving ambushes and noting hidden or approaching creatures. Not a big deal IMO. I don't know the OD&D skill system so I can't say how it could work in 3e.

Consequences of no feats:

1 no default item crafting

2 no metamagic

3 no special combat skill boosts or exceptions to rules

4 fighters become d10 HD warriors who can use tower shields

5 Rangers and monks lose a lot of class abilities

6 wizards lose their rare bonus feats

This leaves you with:

Barbarians: Still raging machines (no power attack, iron will or spring attack though)
Bards: still have magic, bard music, bard knowledge, weak fighting
Clerics: Still overpowered
Druids: Still overpowered
Fighters: Warriors with Tower Shields, lesser than paladins now.
Monks: just have good punches, unarmored AC, good saves, and insane speed.
Rangers: lightly armored warriors with favored enemy who later get animal companions and spells.
Paladins: Fighters with holy powers and spells but no tower shield.
Rogues: weak lightly armed warriors with sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge
Sorcerers: Basically the same
Wizards: Basically the same, slight weakening.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I would argue that the truth is somehwere between the extremes (as it is in most things). Yes, D&D characters of every edition got magical gear as treasure, and as the characters gained levels and defeated more powerful enemies, that gear tended to be more powerful. Hiowever, that was only an average over a pretty wide swath. Any given hoard could possess wildly varying amounts and degrees of treasure and there was no assumed "level appropriate" value. The DM was expected to adjudicate treasure -- either at the time it was placed or by dealing with it later if there was too much or too little. 3E, although maintaining some lip service to the idea of random treasure, codified it in such a way as to make it standardized, which led, inevitably, to the abomination that is "assumed character wealth in magic items by character level".

Why is it an abomination to have assumed character wealth as a function of character level? Why can't a 3.x DM choose to ignore these guidelines, if he so desires, putting him in the same boat as a 2nd-edition DM? I never ran a 2nd-edition game, but was it really easier for a DM to balance the power level of PCs using magic items back then, in the absence of any such guidelines?

 

[Psion]

I never ran a 2nd-edition game, but was it really easier for a DM to balance the power level of PCs using magic items back then, in the absence of any such guidelines?

No.

 

[Reynard]

No.

True. But then, "balance" wasn't as big an issue because the power level was lower and the increases were much smaller from level to level and (perhaps most importantly) how aewsome a character was in combat was not the sole defining factor of a character's "usefulness".

 

[Lanefan]

It is possible to discuss problems neutrally and clinically without getting into trouble, you know. Was it one of the following?

1. It reduced the ability of the DM to control the number and type of magic items available to the PCs, and hence, the tone and power level of his game.

2. It increased the ability of the players to further customize the PCs, thus leading to greater min-maxing.

Both true, though to 1. I'd add that it also greatly reduced the random element - instead of having to rely on the chance of finding Item X for sale or trade in town, the PC can now relatively easily make her own.

It's not like I as DM spend time worrying about every little item that shows up in my game and whether it'll unbalance things slightly. It's more a philosophical thing: that NPC artificers make items, and field-adventuring PCs go out and find them instead. And it's so *trivially* easy to fix, without any knock-on effects either...just make item creation take long enough that most PCs won't bother. (well, there's one little tiny knock-on effect: the item-creation feats would need to be replaced with something more suited to field adventuring)

The ExP cost annoys me too; how is a non-adventuring artificer ever going to earn the ExP required to build anything? I'm glad that's Going Away in 4e.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Why is it an abomination to have assumed character wealth as a function of character level? Why can't a 3.x DM choose to ignore these guidelines, if he so desires, putting him in the same boat as a 2nd-edition DM?

A DM can ignore the guidelines, but the players won't. Headaches all round.

Lanefan

 

[shilsen]

A DM can ignore the guidelines, but the players won't. Headaches all round.

Not if you start the campaign explaining to the players that you're going to be ignoring the guidelines.

 

[Dragonhelm]

2 no metamagic

As sort of a side note, 2nd edition did indeed have metamagic, which was a precursor to 3e metamagic. I believe it was in the Tome of Magic.