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

[Starbuck_II]

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.

Nope. I played in 2e AD&D. There were the same type and amount.
The internet wasn't prominent and available to everyone yet though.

The internet let everyone discuss and share loopholes and discuss pros and cons.

But everyone back than knew:
1/2 Elf Ranger/Clerics are better casters than Rangers and better fighters than Clerics. Yes there was an alignment issue (Ranger), but not everyone was wanted to not be good.

Multiclass Cleric/Mages are decent "mystic Thuerges" (to use 3rd edition Prc class as a description, except not a trap). Some great combos possible by having both types.

Elven Fighter/Mages were allowed to wear Elven Chain and cast spells: meaning designers expected it.

Since you got XP for treasure, only permanant magic items had a 10% chance to cost 1 con: creating charged items like scrolls and wands meant free Exp and new loot.

Now not every DM played by rules. Which makes AD&D discussions difficult because someone will chime that this didn't happen (without knowing they weren't playing 2nd edition but a mismashed version).

 

[Ron]

Each game has its own advantages. Third edition brought an unified resolution mechanic, which was a much nedeed improvement on the system. Unfortunately, the designers did some bad choices as they tried to fit all DM tools, such as monsters and NPC classes with the PC rules. This just brought extra work to the DM without any gain to the game. Also, they created two new layers of customization, skills and feats, to flesh out the characters. Personally, I thought it brought too much complexity to the game, especially after a few levels, and thus it was not worth of the trade off. Obviously, this is an opinion and it will vary from player to player. Finally, the offered a complex tactical combat system in which became important to track the position of each individual player and NPC. Personally, I tend to enjoy the roleplaying and exploration sides more than combat and thus these rules were particullary bad in my taste. As a sidenote, I disregarded them when DMing. However this makes many feats useless which may create some complications.

In summary, third edition brought a few mechanical advantages and character customization. However, the designers followed a complexity trend that made the game too slow and full of minutia to really please my taste. As such, despite many flaws, I still think AD&D is a vastly superior game.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

I really enjoy playing with newbie types so I really value intuitive rules/unified mechanics (D20). So despite my nostalgia 3rd was probably a better system. 2e is full of really strange tables and double negative rolls that throw people off.

I vastly prefer 3e over 2e.
2e is faster-playing and quicker when it comes to generating new characters.

This is really important. Feats and skills balloon your character sheet. They're cool for customization and make you feel more powerful but exponentially add time to character creation and leveling and require everyone to remember a bunch of +1s. And ultimately while it's cool to get +1 to hit and extra HP (toughness) - all the monsters get the same bonus. I find they weigh me down and focus the game on complex battles and character creation, YMMV.

2E campaign settings rock too hard not to use. In the monster books stat blocks are small while descriptions are long. Also 1E modules are crazy funhouses (and compatible with 2E).

I recommend Castles and Crusades. It mixes attribute modifiers and ascending AC/skill checks with the power level of 1E/2E. So character creation and play are very fast and nostalgic while the game is fully compatible with 1E and 2E. It basically takes the fastest/most intuitive aspects of each game. So I use C&C rules, 2E settings, 1E modules, 3E attack rolls and attribute modifiers, monsters from any edition (3E/4E have to be translated on the spot - but it's pretty easy to give it an ad-hoc AC/HP in my head), and add 3E/4E rules when convenient. I basically throw all my favorite bits from any edition into a C&C grinder.

 

[His Dudeness]

I like 2e better.

I mean, I have played both games and the end result is pretty much the same. Only that in 3.x I have to know more rules, I have customize and optimize my characters, the unified mechanic is broken, the saving throws are boring and the balance is lacking. They unified the XP tables, which was pointless and they made casters ubercharacters.

So in the end I've found that I was doing more work to get the same ammount of fun from the system.

All of this is of course the subjective opinion of yours truly.

I also do not like minis. The gaming table is already a mess, adding minis is more work.

I forgot, I LOVE proficiencies and kits.

 

[jcbdragon]

Rangers...ha. Despite being extremely useful and versatile the min/maxers insisted the class was gimped and ignorant party leaders would often refuse to take them. Characers were never gimped in 1e...only the players. But with 3.5, you can copy a build and that's all that mattered.

Someone thought 1e rangers were gimped? Ye gods, they were TANKS! Especially if there were any "giant-class" monsters around!

 

[billd91]

Someone thought 1e rangers were gimped? Ye gods, they were TANKS! Especially if there were any "giant-class" monsters around!

Yeah, I don't believe I have ever heard of anyone saying rangers were gimped back in 1e. They had excellent hit points, no restrictions on armor or weapons, used the fighter tables for attacks, were hard to surprise, were more likely to surprise enemies, knocked off giant class humanoids like popcorn, and picked up specialization in Unearthed Arcana.

2e gimped the ranger substantially. They lost their surprise defense, their giant class bonus got pruned back to a single favored enemy, their improved chance to surprise got transformed into move silently/hide in shadows which tended to restrict their armor. It was simply a mess, not worth being on the same XP table as the paladin, whose powers were simply better.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Someone thought 1e rangers were gimped? Ye gods, they were TANKS! Especially if there were any "giant-class" monsters around!

Uhhh....no. I said Rangers were NOT gimped in 1e. It was in DDO(D&D Online) which was based on 3.5, that Rangers were often considered gimped by the masses. Rangers were great in 1e and I agree with the above poster that the seemed to have gotten screwed by 3e.

 

[billd91]

Uhhh....no. I said Rangers were NOT gimped in 1e. It was in DDO(D&D Online) which was based on 3.5, that Rangers were often considered gimped by the masses. Rangers were great in 1e and I agree with the above poster that the seemed to have gotten screwed by 3e.

I think 3.5 marks the main comeback by the ranger (though Pathfinder raises them nicely again). 3.0 tries to keep too faithful to the 2e gimpy version, and thus needs the 3.5 corrections. But overall, the 3.5 ranger was OK.

 

[slwoyach]

2e was better as far as spellcasters are concerned. Casters are obviously more powerful than non casters by about 6th level, but there were enough limitations to keep them in check. 3e removed those limitations.

3e was better for non-casters. No more was the fighter a one-trick pony, but could be a unique butterfly. Ok, dire-butterfly of doom.

 

[Elf Witch]

I have not played 2E in years and it has been more than 30 since I played 1E.

A couple of years ago I would have said hands down that 3E is my favorite. But lately I have been chafing under the rule set. I think it encourages min/max and over optimizing as the only way to play. I am also a little tired of how fast PCs level and the power glut. I am also not liking the magic item is us mentality.

The things I do like are things like no THACO and the saves are easier. I also think it easier to learn than 2E. I have found it easier to teach newbies how to play 3E than I did with 2E.

I like spontaneous healing but that is it as far as clerics go. And I love sorcerers.

It is my experience that more rules lawyering happens now then back then. I believe that a lot of the players I have seen don't trust their DM and get mad if he dares have house rules.

Back in 2E house rules were expected.

Things I liked about 2E was the priests and their spheres it really made priests of different gods stand out they were not as bland as they are now.

I liked the kits and I liked that they added in disadvantages at the end. Forgotten Realms was best in that time period.

I liked that mages could start out with only 1 HP and had limited spells it taught them to work with the other party members.

There were things I didn't like races having caps for one thing. I like dual classing better then multi classing.