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

[Vocenoctum]

I don't know how pervasive it truly is, but on this and other gaming messageboards there's a prominent culture of anti-GM-ism, where its adherents automatically assume a GM is going to abuse any authority the rules grant him to screw over the players and laugh maniacly into his viking hat. I've only ever met a few GMs like that, and not a one of them had a regular group (and for good reason). it is far more common for a GM to get kicked to the curb than a troublesome, whining ruleslawyer of a player, IME.

I think a lot of it has to do with players having more influence over their character design. In previous editions, you got what magic items were rolled, and the useless ones were still worthless. Your Frost Warrior themed guy would have a Flametongue simply because the DM never rolled a Frostbrand in the right weapon you wanted. Sure he could ignore rolls and pick stuff, but then it becomes another bargaining process. In 3e, you could commision/ purchase the sword you wanted.

I think Magic Items in 3e have become a commodity because DM's have taken the lazy approach of simply throwing treasure at the players and letting them sort it out through purchase/ trading. If the rewards were more customized to the players, the players wouldn't ditch the stuff.

In addition, in previous editions it was impossible to enhance a favorite object, thus leading to discarding of heritage weapons in favor of newer & better gear. In 3e, finally, you can increase your favorite sword that you inherited from dear old dad, rather than be penalized for wanting it.

 

[Vocenoctum]

#1 The interconnectedness of everything in 3E- feats, skills, magic items, assumed power levels, monster CR ratings, experience gain for challenges, etc- the list is endless. Basically, its very hard to houserule 3E without impacting some aspect of the core rules which has been codified and "balanced".

The answer to this is very simple. If previous editions weren't balanced anyway, there's no loss in unbalancing 3e by randomly removing stuff to suit your mood. Previous editions didn't have the player recommended gp value for level, so if you made a higher level PC, you just winged it.

Well, screw it, remove the guidelines and wing it again.

2e just had a flat skill system with no increments worthy of the name, so why worry about the repurcussions of removing skills? Just remove them and assign skills at first level equal to the number of points (minus the X4) the class gets. The never improve. There, now you have 2e...

 

[Wiseblood]

I would say I like the attack bonus + d20 = ac you hit. The downside being you have no less than three different armor classes. Adding to the fact that there are dozens of modifiers to attack rolls that are frequently changing. This is mystifying. Why creat a simpler system only to re-complicate it?

Saving throws each version has its good points. Hard to metagame in 2e the weak saves for a guy vs the somewhat unpleasant prioritizing of saves.

Skills in 2e were crappy and in 3e they were crappy and upkeep laden. I'd go for 3e's version more if they had actually consolidated the hangers on. balance/tumble/jumping, open lock/ disable device.

Other than that 3e had one thing I have always detested. Crit/sneak attack immune
creatures and their half step limitations. (Can't cast conjuration? Well, just take shadow conjuration. Why give the limitation when you give a detour around it?)

 

[Vocenoctum]

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.

There were more magic rings than that, they just weren't addressed in the narrative. (Except for the offhand "there are many rings, none to be trifled with" or whatnot.)

I think part of the problem is the concept of what a magic item is. Was LotR magic light? Perhaps. Or perhaps items that would be considered "magical" in D&D 3e are simply mundane in LotR. "Everyone has stat boosters", sure, but perhaps a lucky charm, or excellent boots give a bonus without screaming "magical power".

A NPC blacksmith might have a hammer of forging that gives him a bonus to Craft, or an anvil of the same. Perhaps his apron of gnomish make is actually an Apron of Fire Resistance 5 that keeps him from getting burned...

All of which is a flavor concession, not a rules one.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Saving throws each version has its good points. Hard to metagame in 2e the weak saves for a guy vs the somewhat unpleasant prioritizing of saves.

...

Other than that 3e had one thing I have always detested. Crit/sneak attack immune
creatures and their half step limitations. (Can't cast conjuration? Well, just take shadow conjuration. Why give the limitation when you give a detour around it?)

3e saves are very different from 2e. IME middling level 2e PCs and NPCs save successfully 75+% of the time. In 3e you are likely to see similar results for in the strong saves, but many more failures in the weak saves (unless you choose to spend significant resources to rectify the problem).

This was a fundamental design change, done on purpose. 3e combat is faster. Spells needs to be more likely to be be fully effective because the spellcasters see fewer Actions. Whether/how this change is a good or bad thing is a separate point.

Your last few points would be variants of annoying sacred cows that have outworn their welcome -- not an edition specific issue.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

LotR gives a very distorted first impression of Middle Earth. You must read the Silmarillion and read between the lines of LotR to see the full picture.

As for the rings, the sole reason the One Ring was not instantly identified was precisely because it gave the impression of being one of numerous minor rings that were not worth much thought to a real wizard like Gandalf.

This is what Gandalf was thinking: "Oh, Bilbo has a Ring of Invisibility worth 20,000 gp market value according to the DMG. What a cute little trinket. I am glad it amuses him."

I am exaggerating obviously, but this is not a low magic world.

 

[JDJblatherings]

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.

2nd editions NWPs were NOT rated to character level they were rated to an ability score.

I really don't miss anyhting in 2nd edition rules that is unique to second edtion except for the rules in the DMG for spicing up horses.

 

[billd91]

I would say I like the attack bonus + d20 = ac you hit. The downside being you have no less than three different armor classes. Adding to the fact that there are dozens of modifiers to attack rolls that are frequently changing. This is mystifying. Why creat a simpler system only to re-complicate it?

Except that the other systems were mighty complicated as well AND had THAC0 in the mix. Many of the modifiers for combat are the same as in 1e and 2e, though 3E did take the time to define standard conditions for characters to be in rather than have those defined ad hoc by the effect that produced them. 1e and 2e had various other ACs as well, including shieldless and Dex-less.

It is true that spells added more bonuses, particularly on the defensive side. They wanted to improve the suite of buffing spells to be something more than just bless, chant, and prayer (all of which were in 1e and 2e and stacked as well as had substantially different durations).

 

[Reynard]

3e saves are very different from 2e. IME middling level 2e PCs and NPCs save successfully 75+% of the time. In 3e you are likely to see similar results for in the strong saves, but many more failures in the weak saves (unless you choose to spend significant resources to rectify the problem).

One of the primary differences between 1e/2e and 3e is that in 1e/2e, how terrifying a magical or monstrous effect was depends entirely on you, the target, not the creature or effect doing it. Spells or monstrous powers required a saving throw, which was based on your class, level, (maybe) race and stats -- with a few exceptions, the numbers were not modified by who was doing it. In 3e, it is just the opposite -- the difficulty of the saving throw is based largely on who or what is forcing the save. of course, class and level and stats have an effect on the liklihood of saving, but they are no longer the sole determiners of succes.

In a world where most everyone was a "Normal Man", 1e/2e saves make for a grittier world where ghouls and shadows and the like are truly frightening to the typical inhabitants -- the PCs, the rare folk with the wherewithall to resist these accursed powers, were needed.

 

[Lanefan]

The thing called "balance" as some kind of automagic property of the system is 3e-speak.

3e *speak*, perhaps, but thought of at least in concept long before 3e showed up. I remember discussions in the '80's with friends where we'd be talking about bits of 1e design, thinking for example "gee, Monks sure are useless at low level" and then trying to balance them without realizing it.

IMNSHO, there is a double-standard here. If you judge 3e by a higher standard, you are implicitly endorsing the idea that 3e has absolutely superior mechanics.

No, I'm recognizing that 3e had (in theory) superior professional designers backed by loads of market research and in-game experience, that 1e and 2e didn't have. So yes, I'm going to judge 3e by a higher standard; and 4e higher yet.

Lanefan