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

[delericho]

As a rule, I found 2nd Edition to be a simpler, faster system. Moreover, there always seemed to be less of a 'math burden' to carry with the system. I miss that.

However, there are sufficient oddities in the system (notably THAC0, the broken multi-classing rules, and the different XP tables for each class) that I wouldn't be able to run the game again without being driven crazy by the quirks.

 

[Sitara]

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

But in 2E pc's had much less hitpoints. (they got capped remember). That avg of 24.5 damage meant a world of hurt for a 2e mage. Plus, there was no spontaneous casting of heal spells. To add to that, casting during combat was much more difficult (no concentration skill/casting defensively).

Bascially, 2e catered well to a group of pc's vs one large powerful baddie critter. 3e focuses more on pc's vs a number of powerul critters. (though ofcourse you can mix and match to some extent).

2e's dual classing mechanic was, however, stupid to say the least. Funnily enough the multiclassing concept was superior to 3e, and you cannot argue that. (Fighter/Mages were actually powerful and fun to play in 2e, yet they never quite overshadowed the mage or the fighter in the group. Not even with a suit of elven chain. Though they could come close... ) In 3e there are only two real way's of playing fighter mages: The eldritch knight and the raumathari battlemage. Both have theri issues however. (in a nutshell, they are very weak fighters)

2e's racial limits were also silly, I doubt anyone followed them. Even the computer games ignored them. The druid class limit was also, pretty dumb.

The 2E fighter was also, quite powerful. (only class to get multiattacks)

Lastly, the psionic rules in 2E darksun (the rules in the revised box set) are quite nice. (though a few powers come too close to mage spells for comfort)

Anyhow I am gearing up to run or play a 2E darksun game. It looks to be fun, fun ,fun.

Note, I'm not particularly defending or bashing any edition. I think overall 3e was a change for the better, though some things (hp bloat for instance, complex skills, weird, weird combination of monsters with templates, and class levels, and prestige class levels, and racial levels etc) got way out of hand.

 

[Spell]

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

i don't think 3e was an improvement at all, sorry.
sure, there are many many neat ideas in it. i LOVE that monsters have save and ability scores in their stat blocks (i never understood why they gave us just intelligence and why saving throw weren't contemplated in AD&D). i like the idea of feats a bit. i like the mechanics for multiclassing, because they eliminate the need for hybrid classes and are much much smoother than the equivalent in AD&D.

i hate the combat. even before the 3.5 it was waaaaay too rule heavy for my tastes. preparation time would take forever, if you want to follow the rules, or, god spare us, customize your monsters. i can't stand the whole "every level has a new power" idea. i think levelling up quickly calls for a gaming experienced that is further away from what i've always looked for in my campaigns (story development, characters as special "normal" people, rather than legendary heroes). i don't like feat proliferation. i can do without in-built assumptions for character wealth and magic wielding powers per level.

and, most of all, i completely despise the fact that the unification of the system meant that if you wanted to change one bit, you basically had to balance one subsystem or another.

try to get rid of feats, or simplify (and speed up) combat, or run a low magic campaign without having to refer to a dozen of other published books beyond the core ones.

in AD&D, the ruleset was a springboard for your imagination. it could have been goofy, old fashioned, in need of fixing. but you could do more or less what you wanted with it and change only the bits you needed to.

in 3e, the ruleset is THE rules. if you want something different, don't hesitate to try another game system.

ps: that is not to say that you can't house rule 3.x. but, with my very limited amount of time, i simply had to quit role playing. i could have found a group and played with them, but i like to DM, sorry.

 

[glass]

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

We did too, but I think it was one of those houserules that everybody had. Didn't someone mention in another thread that it was suggested in the Dark Sun boxed set.


glass.

 

[Spell]

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).

i have to say that, for all my negative remarks, i can't disagree with this. 3e saved D&D fullstop. and it also allowed the flourishing of a number of independent companies that have been producing very good supplements, and are now branching off in their own ways.

on the other hand...

What I miss from 2e is the flavor and feel. 3e reads like a fantasy technical manual at times.

quote for truth. i was bored to death reading every single manual, including the monster manual and the epic level handbook. i know, i know. i pay the designers for making a ruleset that works, and whether i like it or not, 3e does work.

but, at the same time, i am still surprised by how much adventure ideas i get every time i look at my old monstrous compendium. and i still remember devouring the PHB. holy cow, i basically *learnt english* on that book, while reading it. (i am italian).
it's not just a nostalgia thing: the writing was more compelling, more interesting, more adventurous. more evocative, if you wish.

for all its breaking from the "sacred cows" of D&D, i really hope that 4e will be returning to be what D&D is meant to be: a fully and relatively easily customizabile system that is written with inventiveness and insight.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

There's just as many now... although many of the good ones are third party rather than in house.

Iron Kingdoms is better (IMO) than any of the "official" settings have been. A few others are in the running as well.

 

[qstor]

I miss the settings and the fluff from 2e. I love the Volo's Handbooks and the Greyhawk books by Carl Sargent like Iuz the Evil. I think its long past for books like those. I guess it was the "TSR" feeling too all the products. 4e will be for the corporate good of Hasbro.

Mike

 

[Voadam]

My view hasn't really changed now that it is 8 years later.

I still prefer 3e's saves, multiclassing, ability progression, universal xp chart, and full monster stats.

I still prefer 2e's specialty priests and longer monster descriptions.

I guess ease of creating high level NPC or monster stat blocks could be added on as a 2e over 3e preference.

 

[jdrakeh]

I guess ease of creating high level NPC or monster stat blocks could be added on as a 2e over 3e preference.

Me, too! Me, too! Yeah, until I got a copy of the PHB II, quickly creating NPCs in 3x just didn't happen with the RAW. I really liked just being able to jot down some stats in 2e without having the need to do a bunch of bean counting in an effort to strike some artificial concept of 'balance' in the game. I do miss that about AD&D 2e. So. . . erm. . . that and shorter monster stat blocks. That's all I miss, really.

 

[theemrys]

For me, I liked a lot of things about 3.X and have played it for many years now. Over the last year I've gotten more and more nostalgic for older editions though. (Hence why I'm transitioning to Hackmaster). I liked the "power range" going from 1 - 12 rather than 1 -30 (at least the way we played it) and I prefer the multiclass rules from pre 3.X as well... although I always envisioned the longer lived races using Dual and humans being multi...

I never used the level limits in my games and change quite a few things, but it was great. I have found that with the 3.x games I've run they've become more tactical combat games rather than heavy roleplaying. Now, I know this is not a fault of the system completely and you can run roleplaying heavy games with it, but I found the older editions lent themselves more to it, and that's my style so that's what I've prefered.

That being said, I loved the idea of feats (although I think they went a little crazy), I liked the idea of PrCs (but again, I think it went WAY overboard).

I'm mixed on skills... I initially liked skills over nwp, but as time went on I found they required too much min/maxing... I don't like the idea that a 15th level character suddenly should be encountering things that require a much higher DC than a low level...

In truth though I do think 3.0 revitalized the hobby though (brought me back to it) and was a great thing overall. If nothing else, it quickened the industry and got many companies involved and we have more choices of rules and styles than ever before.