D&D 3E/3.5 AD&D 2nd vs 3.5

[GreyLord]

It is most definitely not just presentation. The power structure is a huge difference in the games. The Healing surge (and its support) is another. Both of those differences are major transformations.

Healing surges aren't part of the core anymore than the extra spell the Cleric can cast the +1 portion of his spell list (for ex. 2+1, or 3+1 etc) is in 3e. They aren't what I would consider part of the core dynamic per se...D20 has it's core dynamics and rules which 4e adheres to pretty strongly, a core which didn't exist in previous editions of D&D/AD&D, but does in 3e, 3.5, and 4e (and Pathfinder for those of us that play PF).

For example, PF has a different dynamic of how 0 level spells work...as well as how skills are gained (though they still can be compatible with 3e DC's with slight tweaks), but it still has the core mechanics of D20/3e.

 

[Hussar]

Yes the fighter is capable of taking out a troll at 1st level, it's just highly unlikely. What makes these conversations so difficult is people taking extreme positions.

Sure, it's unlikely. But, it's possible. And, that's just one fighter. Standard party has 3 fighter types. Now, it's not terribly unreasonable for the party to kill the troll in one round.

It's hardly an extreme position. Hit three times for max damage and an average troll dies. Note, in the original example, I used an OGRE. Troll was the more extreme example. But an ogre? One round? Easily plausible. Two hits and ogre dies.

My point is, 2e characters, relative to the individual monsters, were far, far more powerful than 3e. 3e combat is much more lethal than 2e because monsters are generally doing about three times more damage and have twice as many hit points while the fighter types are doing about half as much damage.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My point is, 2e characters, relative to the individual monsters, were far, far more powerful than 3e.

Which monsters? In either edition, DMs are likely to titrate the challenge level and durability level of monsters to meet their needs.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Just chiming in to say that I, too, see the great similarities between 3.X and 4e. I have a lot of 1e D&D books (that I've basically never used), and I've looked through them, and they look positively alien to me. I was introduced with 3.0, and 4e looks obviously close to 3.X to me.

Of course, DannyA clearly showed my view on the differences. You don't need to change a lot to really change the feel (which many people positively loved about 4e, as I'm sure Hussar can attest). But, as someone who came into D&D with 3.0, I can say that 4e looks much closer to 3.X than any previous edition I've seen does. Skills, ability score bonuses, HP, AC, attacks, saves, etc. are all easily recognizable. Certain changes definitely change the nature of how the game plays (healing surges, no skill points, AED powers, etc.), but all of it could / did work within the 3.X frame.

I'm honestly kinda surprised this is debated. But, then again, if I started with 2e, or 1e, or 4e, I'm sure I'd have a different view. Funny how our perceptions are shaped. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Which monsters? In either edition, DMs are likely to titrate the challenge level and durability level of monsters to meet their needs.

Virtually all monsters. If you compare pretty much any stock monster in 2e with it's 3e counterpart the 3e monster has about twice as many hit points and deals about three times as much damage. Given 3e's balancing design where a given monster of a given CR is meant to be a moderate challenge for that level of a group of four PC's, it makes sense.

2e is based on 1e where you didn't design that way. Creatures weren't really designed in that fashion but in a much more organic, "Well, an ogre is bigger than an orc but smaller than a troll, so he gets 4 HD while the hill giant gets 8" sort of way.

If you want a very stark example of this, do a 1:1 conversion of 2e or 1e modules into 3e and watch the level expectations double or even triple. The first Against the Giants in 1e is a 5-7th level module. If you do a 1:1 conversion, it's about 14th. Same with pretty much any 2e to 3e module, simply because the monsters are so much bigger.

Like I said earlier, a troll is a defeatable opponent for a 1st level 2e party. They might lose a PC or two, but, the troll is going down. A 1st level 3e party is a TPK. A 3e troll can do 55 points of damage in a single round (max damage without crits).

 

[NYC_DM]

I really do like both editions...
but one thing I really LOVED about 1st& 2nd AD&D was the look on a player's face when you told them to make a save vs. Death!
Oh, classic.
=D