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

[Neil Bishop]

I certainly appreciated some of the simpler concepts. Monster stat blocks, of course, were so much easier.

Coincidentally, I was also thinking about the NWP system yesterday. Sure, it was not exactly a masterpiece of design but it was simple.

However, then I look at all the stupid, illogical things (including, inter alia, different damage from weapons depending on the opponent's size and thieves having the WORST saving throws against breath weapons... ie, one of 2E's versions of the reflex save) and I know I could never, ever, ever go back. I'll keep going with Savage Worlds for my simpler, yet still flexible, gaming fix.

 

[Arnwyn]

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

I am totally with you there. What a mistake.

In fact, most things about monsters was done better in 2e. The removal of the ecology and habitat/society sections, along with frequency, was also a big mistake AFAIC.


I also miss specialty priests - another area where 3e flopped on.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Combat more deadly in 2e? you've gotta be kidding, right?

In 2e, by about 6th or 7th level you knew you had 3-4 rounds of fight in you because even the the monsters had pretty limited damage. Even with storm giants (at the top of the range), they only did 7d6 (avg 24.5).

In 3e relatively higher damage, along with multiple attacks and the potential of critical hits dramatically increased the potential amount of damage PCs could take. We found in the early days that PCs of 6th-9th level dropped like flies because the players innate sense of how dangerous things were for them was dramatically off.

Cheers

 

[Dragonhelm]

...different damage from weapons depending on the opponent's size...

Now we have different damage based on the wielder's size.

The difference between a small long sword and a medium short sword is simple. 5 GP. That's it. Otherwise, the two weapons are identical. Back in the day, we just used a bit of common sense. A halfling is smaller, so they're going to need a short sword.


As for specialty priests, I agree that they had some of the best flavor around. Maybe not balanced, but I loved how they customized the cleric into interesting characters. Domains are supposed to replace this in 3e, but you could easily come up with clerics of two similar deities with the same domains. This isn't customized to the deity.

Now, what I've seen happen is that some prestige classes take the role of specialty priests. I applaud this. You can see some great examples in Dragonlance's Holy Orders of the Stars.

 

[Piratecat]

I think the thing I like least about 2e is the proficiency system. Skills are much more fun for me.

I loved the way that 2e clerics could be totally different from one another. I like the minor differences of 3e domains a lot less.

 

[TerraDave]

What do I miss from 2nd edition:

All the time I used to have to play.

 

[Reynard]

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.

Immunities are far and away better at achieving the goal of simulating otherworldly, dangerous opponents, however. When the greatsword wielding barbarian can just pump up the power attack and still be able to hit, it cheapens the supernatural quality of the monster (even if it is more "fun" from a gamist perspective). Tiered pluses are better, too -- one of the worst changes between 3.0 and 3.5 was dropping it. I mean, why even given dragons DR when the CR for dragons means that the PCs are automatically going to be equipped with magic weapons?

Mechanically, 3E tends to be more intuitive than previous editions. unfortunately, it is also much mroe integreated, which means adding and removing subsystems is a little more difficult than in previous editions. When the whole system is integrated, it gets broken a lot easier by messing with one little piece. When the "system" is really composed of discrete subsystems, it is harder to break.

For example, the grappling/punching rules of 1E and 2E were just a pain to use. They were also easily replaced, because they really didn't mesh with any other system in the game.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Too true!

I enjoyed 2e quite a bit, though I never touched the Skills & Powers / Players Option books.

What do I miss from 2nd edition:

All the time I used to have to play.

 

[Set]

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

I miss some very specific things, mostly settings like Al-Qadim and Kara-Tur, and 'kits' like the Sha'ir and Totem-Sister (from Elves of Evermeet) and books full of 'wow!' like The Will and the Way.

But rules? 3E is vastly better, IMO. Perfect? No system will be, 'cause if it's so tightly-focused to be 'perfect' for one player in one specific situation, it will be utterly unsuitable for another player with another style of play or in another type of encounter.

 

[jdrakeh]

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.

I do kind of miss one-line stat blocks for monsters. Other than that, I concur 100% with you.