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

[TheEvil]

Overall I prefer the 3.x over 2nd.

The thing I like most about 3.x is that took a lot of the arbitrary GM calls out of the games by providing rules to cover most situations. However, I will admit that most bad rule calls in 2nd were from bad GMs (What do you mean the orc chief reachs around me to chop the hand off of my fallen ally I said I was specifically protecting, picks it up and runs off with it and I can't do anything?!?), and that I ran into plenty of GMs in 3.x who instituted bad and/or capricious house rules to fix percieved problems that felt quite arbitrary (What do you mean you aren't allowing me to draw my weapon as part of a move action because that would make your wife's Quick Draw feat less useful?!?).

The thing I like least about 3.x is that many GMs seem to feel that social skills should trump any other consideration of interaction. It gets pretty irritating the 3rd time in a row a captured enemy spits in your face and indicates a lack of fear, just moments after you have handily slaughtered his companions and make it clear he is next if he doesn't talk, just because you fail your Intimidate check.

What I like most about 2nd was that is was a FAR simpler system.

What I hated most about 2nd was the Complete Book of Elves.

On an unrelated note, I feel that the modules were better in 1st edition.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

Overall I prefer the 3.x over 2nd.

I agree. I like them both but I feel that 3.x was The Game for me.

AD&D 2nd edition:
+ Incredible campaign worlds, all official, lot of splatbooks. Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape... This was their edition. In later editions WotC didn't put too much effort in none of these, which is a huge pity. What is a great ruleset without at least half a dozen indepth splatbooks about Spelljammer? (+ adventures)
+ Harsh multiclass rules made it nigh impossible to dip and otherwize heavily munchinize your character.
+ Player's Options were mostly broken, but still I enjoyed some of the ideas. They were never to be repeated.
- Subsystems and overly heavy/awkward rules. Bend bars etc. This is of course arguable and I'm sure that many 2e fans are rolling their eyes, but I feel that in order to play 2e you always needed house rules. And since everyone had house rules it made it had to migrate from a one group to another. E.g. How did you use nonweapon proficiencies? It was mostly unclear what you could do with them. Every DM invented their own house rules, and then one day you had to switch groups...
- Psionics were so broken that I believe that many players are still completely traumatized by silent 'p's.

3.x
+ Sensible rules really delighted me and made me a fan. The moment I saw the save-system I knew that these are the rules for me but I also felt upset that why did it take SO LONG for them to come up with this stuff?
+ Skill-system is clear. Actually everything you find is always at least 99% clear, it seems to me that they have really thought things through. You want to create 21st level fighter? We have it right here, step by step. You want to create a pee-pot? We have the rules right in this section. It's pretty much all there.
+ CR-system is not perfect, but it helps a lot. This deserves a special mention, because without something like the good ol' CR we (the DMs) would have our hands full of extra work.
- Magic Shop-mentality. Well I wouldn't say that 3.x directly says that everyone has to be able to buy magical items, but they certainly let the cat out of the bag with this one and it has to be the most disgusting aspects in 3.x. Of course you can fix it, but introducing the mentality was very, very bad. Casters creating permanent magical items at level 3? Wealth by level-table? It's a hell and I have to fight with that scheiße all the time. Just because of the 3.x'ish "buy sword +1" -mentality...

All in all both are great games. But 3.x (even with its infuriated magical item spamming rules) is the still the best one.

 

[Greg K]

The thing I like least about 3.x is that many GMs seem to feel that social skills should trump any other consideration of interaction. It gets pretty irritating the 3rd time in a row a captured enemy spits in your face and indicates a lack of fear, just moments after you have handily slaughtered his companions and make it clear he is next if he doesn't talk, just because you fail your Intimidate check.

Yeah, depending upon the enemy, that is just bad DMing. I think it also not reading the the DMG. Under "The DM's Best Friend", the DMG discusses giving circumstantial modifiers to the roll or the DC and, depending upon the circumstances, these modifiers can range up to 20.

On an unrelated note, I feel that the modules were better in 1st edition.

Most definitely.

 

[Greg K]

3.x gave birth to rules lawyers

Nope. Rules lawyers go back to previous editions. 3e may have given them more ammo if one ignored 3.0's Rule 0 stated in the PHB and all of the quotes in the 3.0 DMG telling the DM that the DM is in charge of the game and how it is run/played at their table including "which rules to use and how strictly to adhere to them" (I don't own the 3.5 DMG so I don't know if those passages were removed).

 

[Dandu]

They were not.

 

[Greg K]

They were not.

Tell that to the DMs that I know and you will be given the option to leave. However, they will have a game with several other players willing to accept that the DM will be fair and accept the limitations on character concepts, supplements, and additional house rules.

This is not to say that players don't have the option of voting with their feet if they don't like the particular game being offered by the DM or the DM is unfair/jerk (and by unfair or jerk, I mean out to kill characters, railroad the PCs, use the game as a vehicle to have NPCs over shadow the PCs, etc) . Yet, by the same token, the DM has the choice not to run a game at all if the players want something particular that he or she does not want to run. And, the DM only needs one player to have a game.

 

[Dandu]

Tell that to the DMs that I know and you will be given the option to leave.

The DMs you know do not like the existence of rule zero? Interesting.

 

[Greg K]

The DMs you know do not like the existence of rule zero? Interesting.

They do like them. They will make the changes. You were stating that DMs were not in charge or did I misread what you were responding to.

 

[Dandu]

I was responding to the last thing you were talking about, which was if the text on rule zero was left out of the 3.5 PHB.

 

[Aoric]

I have mixed both together. I don't like prestige classes Kits work better. Skills are better than proficiencies. Thaco is no more or less confusing then current bonuses to attack rolls. Feats are fine it allows for some customization of a character class. I like psionics and magic being different however Fortitude, Will, and Reflex saves are less confusing then the previous save system. However neither 2E or any edition besides 1st edition had the greatest DMG of all time. There is literally a table for everything.

Each edition has it benefits and pitfalls. In the long run if your DM and players enjoy the game then it doesn't matter what system you are using.