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

[Ariosto]

With 2e, the range of material pretty much runs the gamut from near-1st edition to near-3rd. So, how "2e" plays depends, I think, on which 2e you're playing.

My regular group was playing nominally 2e AD&D -- really just "D&D", the same old DM-personalized shindig since 0e. Most of the players actually had 1st ed. books, only the DM having the 2e ones. Then we switched to 3.5 for a while.

For us, the latter was not a good match. The detailed character 'building' did not appeal to most of our gang, and really turned off a significant minority. The old game is better for guys who just want to get right into adventuring, whereas the newer one is better for people who get into all the game factors (skills, feats) describing characters.

Combats had always taken a long time (meaning 30 minutes or so in old D&D), because we had a lot of other socializing going on at the same time. We were also used to playing it pretty fast and loose. Small unit tactics were important, but mainly the interest was in the outcome -- what we were fighting for, and what it cost.

With 3.5, the zoom in on fine points (full action, 5' step, attack of opportunity, etc.) really suited one player who got into it, but the slow pace of the adventures -- exacerbated by our lack of "knuckling down" to the rules -- really bugged at least one other.

There was too much time spent on fights, and too much on discussion of rules (which most of the guys could not be bothered to study). I think the same would have happened if we had been using all the chrome from 2e supplements -- but the chrome seems rather more central to 3e (and certainly was in the eyes of our 3e-enthusiast DM).

 

[prosfilaes]

Back in 2E house rules were expected.

That was not my experience.

 

[nonsi256]

3e is indeed the great RPG revolution in my opinion.
It introduced a lot of stuff people were just aching to see ever since the earliest days of D&D:
- The 3.5 skill system
- Fort-Ref-Will saves
- Iterative attacks
- Feats' mechanics
- Uniformly scaling ability scores
- Unconsciousness & Dying below 0 HP
- More or less balanced races without the level limits or weird progression crap
- TWF
- Combat maneuvers such as Bull Rush, Trip & Sunder.
- Conditions
- Multiclassing
- ASF & ACP,
- Real class features, such as Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Slippery Mind etc.
- Cha actually counting for something


Nevertheless, there are just too many things that in all 3e variants that were never addressed properly (or at all):
- Inferior martial combat action economy
- Broken spellcasting action economy
- Overall class balance
- Real class versatility and options that really amount to more than just stat ogmentations.
- Weapon groups and weapons' balance
- Broken spells
- 1st level survivability
- Class-less characters
- Helmets
- Called Shots
- Level dependent dodge AC
- Charging
- Holding a hostage with a knife to his throat
- Epic level progression
- Feinting
- Fighting Recklessly
- Force Effects having infinite HP
- Grappling
- Immunities
- Massive Damage
- Stacking stat increases
- Overrun
- Play Dead
- Pulling Punches
- Shield Another
- Turn Undead

 

[Tyrex]

Chrome got in the way of 2Ed.

The last time I played was with a group of seasoned veterans who like me came up through the ranks of the original boxed sets through 1 Ed and at the time converted to 2 Ed. We had grown up with the game and were well into our second decade of play. This was a time when I also became a player only, not DM.

The 2 Ed when it rolled out was nice as it to me provided some clarification on many areas where we had developed house rules. And THAC0 was a nice change. The DM ran a home grown campaign that borrowed from here, fleshed out from there, and in general it was quite fun for about a year, year and a half.

And we were all making a decent living at the time, most of us working in IT. Why I mention this is important. It allowed us to buy the new stuff (Options: books, [class] Handbooks, etc.) as soon as it hit the shelf. Then everything seemed to explode: new campaign settings (Birthright, Dark Sun, etc.) and even more outlier products that just muddied the waters.

Our sessions were fun at first as we would spend 30-45 minutes talking about the latest product we bought. But eventually it became less about the immersion and more about the product; we as players would reference our Handbooks and what not and the DM soured on 'product overload'. He was a very creative DM and the strength of our group was the interaction we had with his world-arc. We really were focused on the role aspect, and knew the core rules inside and out. Now our DM was adopting a blanket response like 'I'm not familiar with the Firbog as player class, and will need a week to hone up...' I lost interest and left the group. I heard they played on for about another year, and then moved into the PC gaming realm, much the same as I did.

Does 3.5 care for this? I'm not sure. But from my personal experiences, the core of 2 Ed made some very nice improvements over 1 Ed. It was the never ending expansion and supplement over-kill that did us in.

 

[Hussar]

That was not my experience.

Really? Good grief, I never saw a single 2e table that ever played without a boat load of house rules. That was pretty much one of the biggest pushes behind 3e - getting a standardized ruleset that everyone could play. Heck, considering the mountain of splats and supplements for 2e, two groups could be playing the same edition but totally different games, even before personal house rules came up.

As far as rules lawyering goes, my take is this. In 2e, I saw several sessions go up in flames over rules debates and disagreements. Completely derail entire sessions. I think I can count the number of times this happened in 3e on my fingers (and possibly a couple of toes). A concrete and above all CLEAR ruleset meant that rules lawyering was kept to a minimum. Any rules discussion typically required a five minute rule lookup (even faster with things like the Hypertext SRD) and done.

To me, 3e is simply better designed. When you pick up a 3e book, you generally don't have to go through it with a fine tooth comb and discard 3/4 of it because it's either completely inappropriate or terribly balanced or both. 2e was the edition where game writers simply tossed whatever they wanted at the wall and it got published. Virtually no oversight and very, very little attempt to make sure it fit together.

3e, for its flaws, did make a consistent attempt to make things fit mechanically. I can't think of any 3e supplements that are as poorly balanced as things like the Complete Elves, Faiths and Avatars (fantastic flavour, terrible mechanics) or the Complete Priest. Nothing comes even close to those books.

 

[nonsi256]

3e, for its flaws, did make a consistent attempt to make things fit mechanically. I can't think of any 3e supplements that are as poorly balanced as things like the Complete Elves, Faiths and Avatars (fantastic flavour, terrible mechanics) or the Complete Priest. Nothing comes even close to those books.

Dweomerkeeper, Plannar Sheppard, DMM & nightsticks, uber gishes, Sublime Ur Lyrics, Ur Theurge . . .

 

[Hussar]

Dweomerkeeper, Plannar Sheppard, DMM & nightsticks, uber gishes, Sublime Ur Lyrics, Ur Theurge . . .

I actually have no idea what any of those things are.

Meh, I don't worry overmuch about these kinds of things to be honest. I'll see your Sublime Ur Lyrics and raise you a 5th level 2e priest that can summon a fire elemental at will (and elementals in 2e are devastating considering no monster under 8 HD can even hit it) - Faiths and Avatars Priest of Kossuth. Oh, and I can cast any wizard spell with the word "fire" in it as a priest spell of the same level.

And this doesn't require me to scout out fifteen different splat books to abuse.

Oh, and if, from the same book, I am a priest of one of the magic gods, (I misrember which one), I now have access to ALL wizard spells as cleric spells of the same level. That's in addition to my cleric spells.

 

[haakon1]

I actually have no idea what any of those things are.

Nod. Over here, I loved AD&D (1e) and I currently love 3.5e.

One of the things I did running AD&D, I kept with 3.5e: I decided, where crunch is concerned, less is more.

So for AD&D, my rule set was: PHB, DMG, Legends & Lore, Greyhawk (1983 boxed set), Monster Manual, MM2, and FF, plus about a half dozen rules I liked from Unearthed Arcana. Kept it relatively usable, and focused on the story, not the rules.

For 3.5e, I take the same approach: PHB, DMG, all MM's and Fiend Folio, Living Greyhawk Gazeteer, Deities & Demigods, and selected, individually approved rules from UA, PHB2, Net Book of Feats, etc.

Having the rules other PHB, DMG, and MM be out of print is not a huge disadvantage, IMHO.

I assume they will re-print the same for 2e, eventually.

 

[Weregrognard]

In retrospect, I feel that while 3.x made several improvements to the game, many of these had unintended consequences; one which was the removal of checks and balances on casters. I could probably write an essay on this topic alone, but this is not the place to do it

Suffice it to say 3.x (in comparison to AD&D 2e) was a great edition for players, but not so much for DMs. Whereas prepping and running 2e was a pleasure, for 3.x it was a chore (stat blocks anyone?) This dawned on me with the realization that I was using published material almost exclusively.

While I had fun with 3.x, and would play it again, you'd have a hard time convincing me to DM it.

 

[Hussar]

I think I'd go this way. The flavor elements in 2e are far, far better than 3e. I don't think that can really be disputed. The monster manuals alone are just chock a block with flavour text. Heck, to the point where people are actively turned off of 4e because they tampered with 2e flavour some fifteen years after publication.

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.