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

[Stormonu]

I loved 2E. I actually managed to get something published for it in Dungeon Magazine (#78, Winter Tapestry). I used all the supplements I could get my hands on it for my game, except perhaps the Player's Option books (though I did use some of Combat and Tactics)

Somewhere within the first 90 days of playing 3E, I remember uttering "I'll never play 2E again."

However, last year I played a 2E version of Ravenloft for Halloween and it got me longing to break out my 2E books and give it a go again. Both 3(.5E/Pathfinder) have some great components, but so does 2E. I think 2E allows you to build and play a little faster, but 3E is a little less wonky/uneven and has more options that allow you to mechanically back up character options you take.

I do hate, however, what the charop boards did to the mentality around the 3E game. I'd have hated to see what D&D would have become if they existed in earlier versions of the game.

I think, in the end, I lean more towards 3E being my favorite.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which edition do you prefer? Which advantages does one have over the other?

Player since 1977: 3Ed- specifically 3.5Ed- is my preferred iteration of the game.

It is more flexible and has more internally consistent mechanics (like unified stats & leveling).

Nothing equals the 2Ed priest for divine caster design, though. And, but for Eberron, the Pre-3Rd settings were just better.

 

[billd91]

OTOH, 3e is far and away a better designed game mechanically. It bloody well should be. Twenty years of AD&D experience, a bajillion hours of play time, I would hope that the designers learned a few things about making a better game.

In some ways it was a step forward, in others, a step back. 2e, for example, does caster/non-caster balance better than 3e does. It also does a better job of balancing damage spells vs save or die spells.

 

[Nellisir]

I started playing with 2e, so I have a great big soft spot in my heart for it, but I still remember the pages and pages of house rules I ended up making to smooth out the weird bits that annoyed me. 3e eliminated almost all of them.

And gave me new ones.

 

[MoonSong]

I don't know, all I know remember is the "yes you can try" moniker of early 3e, the high level of customizability you can get out of it, how system mastery has allowed me to even create a new character in five minutes, from memmory, how I have houseruled the hell out of it, and tinkered over and over. And yet, all paths lead me back to second edition. After all this time it remains on my mind and heart as "the one and true D&D" (Now, before you start going down in flames, when I was a kid knowledge about rpgs wasn't as widespread on my home country, 2e was the d&d I knew in my childhood, that esoteric and arcane thing that only grown ups could understand, then 3e showed up and it was "oh so they now made d&d for dummies too!")

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I strongly prefer 2E. (AD&D is my actual favorite though). The reasons are a lot of little reasons why, but a few that stand out are losing spells if hit when casting, initiative system, and 3E's unified XP charts.

 

[The Speaker in Dream]

I strongly prefer 2E. (AD&D is my actual favorite though). The reasons are a lot of little reasons why, but a few that stand out are losing spells if hit when casting, initiative system, and 3E's unified XP charts.

3.5e did good things unifying mechanics, but went overboard on empowering casters. The big downfall, though, is that the designers set out with the idea of creating "trap" choices in the game mechanics and wanted "system mastery" to be a feature of the game. What can you say about a game that sets out as a design goal to intentionally obfuscate some of the design nuances?

2e, IMO, was better on class balances and class identity/feeling of leveling via the different exp charts, etc. It was also pretty balanced in caster vs. non-caster confrontations. Additionally, letting warriors be the best in combat types period was a good thing it had going. Letting warriors have the best overall saves was also another nod in favor of the warriors (as they grew in level anyway). It let the casters cast, but the warriors could still bounce heavy effects off of their chests as needed.

Definitely strengths and weaknesses in both, but for me - that's why I went to Myth & Magic - it brought the good/best of both versions together and created something pretty dang solid, IMO.

 

[Hussar]

You all seem to agree that there were rules-lawyers before 3e. Ok fine, I agree there were. There have always been players who get into the art, and there will always be, no matter how many D&D editions come out.

Permit me to rephrase my poorly expressed argument, through a question.

Are you saying that there is the same amount and "type" of rules-lawyering now with 3.x than there was with AD&D?

Personally, I think there is a big difference, and I've attempted to explain that difference in my previous post.

Oh, yes, there was absolutely. IME, it was far worse in 2e because so many of the rules in 2e were very vague and easily prone to interpretation. The more allowable interpretation, the easier it is to rules lawyer. After all, if the interpretation can be supported, it's not factually wrong. A fair DM should listen to the players and if the interpretation is reasonable, there is a fair chance that the DM may rule in favor of the player.

Multiply that by many, many times and you get rules lawyering in 2e. One of my biggest reasons for sticking with 3e and ejecting 2e was the table time taken up by rules disputes dropped to nearly zero in 3e where my 2e games would see constant rules disputes.

 

[Hussar]

Sigh, totally did not notice the threadomancy on this thread. Until the sixth page when I realized I was reading my own posts. Oops.

I still stand by what I said earlier though. 3e is a massive change from 2e. The tone of the game is completely different, and I really don't understand how anyone can say you can make easy translations between 2e and 3e. The characters got scaled WAYYYY back in relation to the monsters. The classes are very, very different than their 2e counterparts and the approach to the game is completely different. 3e focuses a lot more on the adventure and 2e on the world, I guess is how I would phrase it.

I mean, I can make a 2e fighter, using the Complete Fighter (which, IME, was pretty standard) that does 16 points of damage in the first round and 26 in the second (twf, specs longsword, longsword and shortsword) at first level, without any stat bonuses at all. Considering that an ogre averages 18 HP, my 1st level fighter can pretty easily go toe to toe with an ogre and expect to win. 2e characters were pretty high on the heroic scale.

My 3e fighter at 1st level? Get's kersplatted in the second round, if not the first. The 2e ogre is averaging 5.5 points of damage/hit. The 3e ogre is averaging 12 points per hit. My 2e fighter has a pretty good chance of surviving one, possibly two hits from that ogre. The 3e fighter? Drops on the first hit. Certainly drops on the second.

I really don't get the opinion that 2e and 3e are so closely related. To me, they're completely different. That's WHY I like 3e. Clear, concrete rules and a much grittier combat system where your PC isn't a super hero from first level.

 

[billd91]

We see less rule lawyering in 3e in our local games, but I think that's at least partly a function of maturity. We saw less of it in 2e than we saw in 1e too. I do see lots worse rule lawyering online with 3e than I ever saw in person though. Hardly any give and take at all. That makes me wonder if its just Internet behavior or the supposed clarity of the rules boosting everyone's confidence they're right.