AD&D revised 2E [VS] D&D 3.5E

[KingKaddish]

Hi

I am a well seasoned DM of "MULTIPLE" campaign settings with the AD&D revised 2e rules.

I recently found a copy of the 2e -3e conversion document. I was now "beginning" to consider the change over to 3.5e...

...could "SOMEONE/ANYONE"...please tell me if it is a good idea to go with 3.5e or stay with the revised 2E, an possibly good reasons for there answers.

As I REALLY do not wish to begin a new rules system again unless this one is a MAJOR improvement. An I have also heard stories of ppl having problems makine the change if they are long time players of the 2e rules system....


I "REALLY" hope someone will help me...



Thanks for any and all replies an comments

Anthony

 

[FireLance]

The 3e rules are generally more streamlined, consistent and balanced than 2e rules.

3e also expects players to be more familiar with the rules, and makes the rules much clearer to the players. Some DMs do not like this because they feel it restricts their ability to make rulings on the fly when running games.

The basic assumptions behind the game, e.g. how much treasure and magic the characters ought to have at each level, and what creatures are likely to present a significant but not overwhelming challenge for the PCs, are stated more clearly. Some DMs find this useful in balancing their games, while some others feel that it creates a sense of entitlement in the players with respect to what creatures they should face, and how much treasure they should be awarded.

3e also presents players and DMs with a great deal of options which allows for a great deal of customization of characters and NPCs, but some find the wealth of choices to be too complicated and overwhelming at times.

My personal opinion is that 3e and the 3.5e revision were major and significant improvements to the game, but I recognize that the changes will not be to everyone's taste. I was also a long-term DM (and occasional player) of BD&D, 1e (including Unearthed Arcana), 2e (including Player's Option), and I adapted to 3e quite easily.

 

[Crothian]

It depends on what you like and don't like about 2e. Also, why do you want to make the move to a new system?

 

[Dragonhelm]

Another option you could look at is Castles & Crusades. It includes a lot of the improvements of 3e, while still having a 1e/2e feel.

C&C is a game where you can adapt it any number of ways. You can add 3e's skills and feats to it, or 2e's non-weapon proficiencies. Of course, the SIEGE engine doesn't require either.

So that's another option.

 

[Piratecat]

To stay totally away from the feel of the rules for a sec, I'd say that the main reason to switch to 3.5e is that it is much easier to find new players.

Speaking only for myself (I was a 1e and 2e player), I love the current edition of the rules and wouldn't go back. For the good stuff that we had to give up (highly customizeable priest classes), we got a ton of things in return -- much better high level play, unified mechanics, and characters that for me are simply more fun to play.

It's not for everyone, though. I also heartily recommend Castles & Crusades for the old D&D feel with better game mechanics.

EDIT: if you played 1e as well, you may appreciate the fact that Gary Gygax posts here as Col. Playdoh. And we're thrilled to have him!

 

[Korgoth]

I have played and DM'ed Classic, 2e and 3.0 and I've played 1e and 3.5.

I would definitely suggest staying with 2e. One of the last sessions of 3.5 I played was with a mid-level party of 6 characters encountering and battling about an equal number of skilled opponents, including a small dragon. This fight lasted hours. The session ran so long people's wives were actually pestering them to pack it up for the night. And even though pretty much the whole session was just that one fight, and it drug on for hours, the fight wasn't even exciting. Why? Because it was really just a miniatures wargame. It was all about Five-Foot Steps and exact demarcations of Areas of Effect and "Dave, move your guy into Flanking Position" and so on. It didn't have any life or soul. Nobody swung on a rope over a pit, nobody kicked the evil high priest's wand out of his hand, nobody gave anybody a boost up to a ledge where he could do an end-run around the bad guys. All that would have been too complicated I guess. Instead, it was just a drawn-out version of a fight you might play in one of the Baldur's Gate engine computer games, but without the sound effects or flashing colors (and moving much slower).

I never had experiences like that in 2e. I remember DM'ing for a group that raided this orc temple to rescue an Orcish Princess (my little twist) from a rival faction. In the course of the combat there were all sorts of swashbuckling antics, a large central pit containing an angry bear became an element that people were getting knocked into, and one guy even raided the wyvern aerie on the top floor and "barnstormed" the main area (send the bad guys rolling, of course!). And that didn't take all day and it was fun, full of things never tried before or since (because there were no rules for them so it's all just the DM making calls on the spot) and it was exciting. Everybody had fun, because for one thing they were able to do whatever cool stuff they wanted... if they made the roll.

Anyway, in my personal opinion I've come to the conclusion that the high level of "rulesyness", i.e. the attempt to have a rule for everything and everything under a rule, drains all the life and imagination out of 3e. Does your character want to run along the boom of a sailing ship and then jump off, tackling the pirate leader? Well, you can't unless you bought "Heroes of the High Seas" and your character took the "Boomrunner" feat as well as the "Flying Tackle" feat from "Heroes of the Far East". Why is that stricture there? Because while Bill wants his character to do this action, Dave actually went out and bought those books to get some of the feats from them. Which means Dave wasted his money and his feat choices if anybody is allowed to have those "powers". Now combine that with the tactical emphasis on battlemaps and minis and you have a game that no longer possesses, in my opinion, the freewheeling and "wahoo!" spirit of the old days. One might combine those two adjectives into one term: "adventure".

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Let's see:

Imagine a ruleset where a lot of the tables were replaced by standardized formulas. No 6 tables for ability scores with different benefits, some of which only apply if you're race X or class Y. No big tables for saving throws.

Imagine a ruleset that is more tools than rules - instead of saying "you're not allowed to do X", it lets you do it, albeit with a disadvantage attached to it. Or it just goes ahead and lets you do it.
Every race can have every class (restrictions like that belong to settings, not rules, anyway), and few classes have alignment restrictions. No ability requirements, either (well, you need a certain Int, Wis or Cha if you want to cast spells, but you could be a rogue with Dex 8 or a Fighter with Str 3)
You can combine all classes with each other, and you can do so on a level-by-level basis. No different systems for multi-/dual-classing based on race, either. The basic bonuses on saves and attacks will stack, not overlap.

The system has been standardized so higher rolls and bonuses are always better: AC is better, the higher it gets. You try to get over that with attack rolls (the higher, the better). Saving throws get higher and they need to beat save DCs.

The basic action is almost always a d20 plus bonuses that needs to beat the target number: Attacks, Saves, Skills, Ability Checks. The bonuses are usually something derived from class and level and something derived from your abilities. That's right: The agile rogue (that's the new thief, without the burglary prejudice attached) is more likely to evade that fireball than the clumsy one.

A character's abilities affect how hard to save against his powers, too. The smarter the wizard, the harder to get out of his fireballs way.

Characters are a lot more customizable, too: Instead of Non-Weapon Proficiencies (and Rogue Skills), there's Skills and Feats now. Skills are things you can get better at over time, like hiding, crafting things, bluffing, knowing about hostory or religion. Feats are one-time abilities that give you new abilities, let you focus in all kinds of abilities, or lessen penalties for difficult actions (like fighting with two weapons at once). This also includes the whole weapon proficiencies thing (note that everyone can get proficient in any weapon, by spending a feat on it. All classes get their standard loadout of weapon proficiencies from the start).

You get one feat every 3 levels (and another one at level 1; some classes get bonus feats, too.) and several skill points per level (2 for fighters and such, and 8 for rogues. Everyone gets his int bonus on top of that every level, too).


One of the greatest things about D&D 3.5 is not that it's so easy and streamlined, but because everyone may use it and makes his own stuff based on it. And they don't owe no one a dime. They can even sell it. In fact, there's a lot of really great 3rd-party stuff out there.

The rules are online, too http://www.d20srd.org/ The System Reference Document doesn't contain everything (character creation and advancement as well as some iconic D&D monsters like Mind Flayers are found only in the rulebooks), but the rest is in if you want to take a peak (the races are there, the classes are there, the skills, feats, spells, weapons and other equipment, the monsters, from the core rules and some other rulebooks, like psionics).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Does your character want to run along the boom of a sailing ship and then jump off, tackling the pirate leader? Well, you can't unless you bought "Heroes of the High Seas" and your character took the "Boomrunner" feat as well as the "Flying Tackle" feat from "Heroes of the Far East".

You can do that without any feats.

Compare it to 2e, where you have to buy Complete Book of elves so you can play elven bards, oh, excuse me, elven minstrel. Same for dwarf pala... crusaders or something.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Does your character want to run along the boom of a sailing ship and then jump off, tackling the pirate leader? Well, you can't unless you bought "Heroes of the High Seas" and your character took the "Boomrunner" feat as well as the "Flying Tackle" feat from "Heroes of the Far East". Why is that stricture there? Because while Bill wants his character to do this action, Dave actually went out and bought those books to get some of the feats from them.

I'd would just want a Balance check for the boom, then a let him make a Bull Rush, adding a +4 bonus, since he's done this swashbuckly move along the boom. Same effect, but player gets a reward for his daring action. (Why +4? +2 for "pseudo-charge", i.e. running; +2 for doing something interesting)

The problem of 3rd edition is, that you *easily* fall into this trap. Just because there *is* sourcematerial out there, it does not mean that you have to use it.

The WotC-rules are written in a "playing-save" style, to help inexperienced DMs. Just ignore this attitude, and allow your players to step out of the boundaries, then you get a nice system, wher everything is quite easy.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

To stay totally away from the feel of the rules for a sec, I'd say that the main reason to switch to 3.5e is that it is much easier to find new players.

What he said. Unless you're with a group of people who play right now, finding new 3E players is orders of magnitude easier than finding 1E, 2E, OD&D, BD&D or C&C players. It's much easier to find people in your area to play GURPS or a White Wolf World of Darkness game than it is to find someone playing 2E, most of the time.

Onto the specific products:

3E is also incredibly customizable, and you can add all the fiddly bits you want and you can also drop quite a few of the base ones -- the DMG tells you about the options of doing so in many cases (and the Manual of Planes goes into a lot of planar-specific ones) and the upcoming Rules Compendium will apparently be full of those kinds of sidebars.

When I DM, I drop some of the fiddliest aspects of 3E -- no hours-long combats for me here, thanks -- and only bolt on what's appropriate for an individual campaign.

The consistency of the core ruleset is also one of those things that, once you go to it, it's hard to go back. It's worth noting that even C&C retained that when it headed back towards more old school play. Higher is always good, lower is always bad and once you learn the core mechanic, flipping around to find charts is a thing of the past. If nothing else, the fact that 3E has made a screen truly optional at last, I find to be a very, very cool thing.