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

[Reynard]

We always assumed this was the default for the minimum of what a fighter of a certain level had in permanent magic items and thus everybody in the party by a certain level had the equivalents (the wizard didn't have the magic weapons and armour but would have bracers and maybe a magical staff/wand)

It isn't a bad assumption and certainly makes sense to extrapolate, but that's a far cry from a chart that says "A character if X level needs Y gp in items to really be that level for CR purposes."

 

[Voadam]

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.

1e had metamagic spells in the PH, Extension I, II, and III for example.
2e had metamagic spells in the PH as well. Wu Jen from the Complete Wizard's Handbook could do a maximize damage effect 1/day. It was College of Wizardry at the end of 2e that introduced nonweapon proficiencies that acted like metamagic feats though. Tome of Magic had new spells, items, and the new casters but not really metamagic feat stuff that I recall.

 

[Voadam]

Cool, whatever.

Using 3e, the DM has absolute control over that aspect of the RPG when it is being used. And over many others, but that's perhaps besides the point.

So it is in fact impossible for DMs to have (or to have had) any degree of control greater than that. Simple, really.

Rule Zero has always been part of the game. But the default game item creation rules are different from 2e to 3e.

In 2e by the book players could only create magic items at high levels after going through significant hoops that are under the discretionary control of the DM.

In 3e by the book players can create items at first level (wizards get scribe scroll as a class ability at level 1 and it is not tough to accomplish) with set procedures not dependent on DM discretionary control.

 

[SuStel]

In either case, pretending that in 2e you could simply strip away weapons and not have an effect on balance is illusory, because there was no such plainly published standard of balance. It's all on the GM feeling out what the right level of power is to face the PCs.

I've only been half-paying attention to this topic, so forgive me if this has been mentioned or is behind the current tangent.

In the classic style, isn't it up to the players to decide the strength of the opposition they face? "We're only 1st level characters; maybe we shouldn't go down that shaft to the 5th dungeon level." "We're only 1st level characters; maybe we shouldn't try to trek across the Swamp of Inevitable Bloody Death."

The only value I see in the referee being able to scale encounter strength to the party is if he's planning on railroading the party through those encounters in a precise order. "Today you'll be fighting the Evil Overlord of Antebavaria. But don't worry; I guarantee you have enough resources to defeat him."

 

[Spell]

I'd suggest you can.

you know, i think i would like being a player in one of your games.

 

[Spell]

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".

also, if i may add, you wouldn't have to worry about everyone wanting to take "just a level or two" in uberclass of the week. you could have a class that was way out of balance: it would have take a player three times as much to get from level 1 to level 2, but, hey, if that's what he likes...

 

[Spell]

I would like sometime to play this marvelous game called "2e"

[...]

Alas, I only have years of experience with TSR's Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition, where none of those things were true by the remotest stretch of the imagination.

unfortunately for you, you didn't sit at my gaming table.

 

[billd91]

In the classic style, isn't it up to the players to decide the strength of the opposition they face? "We're only 1st level characters; maybe we shouldn't go down that shaft to the 5th dungeon level." "We're only 1st level characters; maybe we shouldn't try to trek across the Swamp of Inevitable Bloody Death."

The only value I see in the referee being able to scale encounter strength to the party is if he's planning on railroading the party through those encounters in a precise order. "Today you'll be fighting the Evil Overlord of Antebavaria. But don't worry; I guarantee you have enough resources to defeat him."

Yes and no. The DM was still doing the adventure design (or using modules targeted to the levels of the PCs) based on what he thought would be appropriate challenges for the party or he was pointing them/hooking them with plot elements directed toward the adventures he had available that were level appropriate.
If it was a big, long dungeon crawl with multiple levels, then he could leave it up to the party when they felt capable of finding more dangerous areas. But he was still putting in challenges designed for what the party's level was when they started the adventure. If he didn't, he'd have a TPK very quickly.

 

[AllisterH]

It isn't a bad assumption and certainly makes sense to extrapolate, but that's a far cry from a chart that says "A character if X level needs Y gp in items to really be that level for CR purposes."

Hmm? Isn't this a point in FAVOUR of the 3E method?

I mean, if you're a DM, at what level does a Balor become a good challenge for your party? In 1E/2E, you had to eyeball it based on what level of gear your party currently had and their level and you wouldn't know unless you actually ran a mock combat. In 3E, at least given what the designers think would be appropriate challenge based on gear & level, you know what needs to be tweaked if your party has more or less magical items for their level.

What level does the hammer of thunderbolts become a "neat but balanced weapon" instead of "oh geez, one shot combat".

Even in 1E/2E, magical items, especially for the melee classes was very important and was tied to level. Hit any level 7+ party in 2E with Mord's Disjunction and the higher the inital level they were, the more levels they fell in capability.

As an aside, I always suspected that the reason why the 2E xp for outer planar inhabitants were lower than the 1E xp was because Gygax et al were working on a different assumption as to what the gear people were carrying.

re: Tome of Magic
Tome of Magic was the stealth 4th core book in 2E. Tome of Magic introduced new spheres (numbers, time and thought among others) and new CLERIC/DRUID spells that beefed up the spell selection for the priest classes. It was this which allowed Faith & Avatars along with Spells & Magic to come up with the specialty priests. Seriously, the Complete Priest's handbook which first came out with the specialty priests nobody uses because of how horribly weak the sample SP were.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

But yet, in the context of the original question, there it is: system based support for player created magic items in 3E vs no such thing in 2E. In 3E, a DM wanting to preserve the integrity of his "magic item economy" by not allowing PCs to make items is specifically saying "No." Previously, he is at best maintaining the status quo. And if you don't find it more difficult, time consuming and problematic to say "no" and explain why "no" is the right answer, either your players are far more compliant than any I have ever met before or you are cold hearted bastich.

This here looks like a glass half empty, glass half full kind of issue.

The is no such thing as "magic item economy" in 2e out of the box. The DM must make it up out of whole cloth. Unless he is running an extremely magic poor world, this will eventually become a necessity.

3e does have an implied magic item economy out of the box. It works okay for some DMs and less so for others.

Whether it is better to start with a blank slate or to amend an existing structure is a matter of personal preference. I am rather doubtful that the blank slate is a better starting point for most DMs, but I trust you understand your own needs here.

Regardless of what RPG or RPG edition you are playing, if the GM fails to communicate expectations & reasons, and the game runs very differently from what the players anticipated, you are likely to get some degree of grousing.

Where I have seen some grumbling is with a DM who insisted that he was running wealth by guideline campaign when asked, but was actually closer to ~65%. Not truly a huge difference, but enough to annoy players when they were explicitly told otherwise. From my POV, I am more than willing to do my part to adjust to the campaign if I can understand what to expect. There are some PC concepts I would be less likely to play -- that is all. This does not need to be a big deal.