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

[WSmith]

...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....

Most of the responses here will be favored toward 3.5 cause this is the web hub for 3.5. If you went to another web forum, the consensus might change. With that said...

...I think in your situation, you are the only one who could answer that questions. You need to weigh the options, such as you are a long time DM of 2e who is very familiar with the rules and has lots of game materials for it already, or would you like a bigger fan base such as that of the 3.5 crowd and invest a little more money on the books. This is what it will come down to. Gamers have opinions on both editions, but only you can decide which is best for you.

 

[Korgoth]

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.

I'm speaking as a "Classic or 1e" guy... I don't care for the "Kit" approach. Elves aren't supposed to be bards. Just play an Elf (Classic) or Elven MU/Th (1e) who plays a musical instrument sometimes and sings his spells.

There doesn't have to be a special rule to tell you what happens when you sing your spells as opposed to bombastically declaring them in an arcane tongue or whispering them in a gravel voice... that's just "color". There doesn't need to be a rule for everything. In fact, when there aren't those rules, it encourages players to come up with colorful idioms to distinguish their characters.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Look, forget about mechanics for a minute and ask yourself a question: do you want to switch? Does your group want to switch?

Play what you enjoy and don't worry about what the rest of the world is doing. If you hear of or see something in current d20 D&D that you can't live without but don't want the baggage, co-opt it.

 

[Psion]

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....

Well, it's really up to you if it's worth it or not, but let me offer this:

I was a long time 2e player with my hand-tuned 2e house rules, and was seriously considered sticking with those ad infinatum when 3e came along. I was just about to junk it for parts, and it did seem like a lot of work to switch over.

But what I did do is start a second 3e game while my 2e game was ongoing.

Within a month, I was hooked. The main selling point was the more complete and flexible format of 3e monsters; before 3e, I mainly used intelligent races that could have class levels as adversaries; other monsters tended to be throwaway encounters. Now, with 3e, I could make an interesting NPC of nearly any intelligent creature.

So, I switched over to 3e and became more and more happy with the decision. Looking back, I don't know how I put up with certain 1e/2e conventions.

As for problems with longtime players... there'll be a few, like reluctance to play combinations not possible in 2e (like Dwarven wizards) and misremembering spells that have changed. But my experience is that won't last too long, and in the long run, it's worth it.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Elves aren't supposed to be bards.

Nah, the whole art loving is so not bard.

Just play an Elf (Classic)

One of the worst things back then. "Do you want to play an elf or a fighter?" That's like "do you want steak or do you want to have a drink with your food?" Apples and oranges. I'm glad D&D moved away from calling everything fruit.

or Elven MU/Th (1e) who plays a musical instrument sometimes and sings his spells.

No. If I want an elven bard, I don't want a MU/Th who pretends to be a bard (I play that If I want to play a MU/Th who pretends to be a bard)

There doesn't have to be a special rule to tell you what happens when you sing your spells as opposed to bombastically declaring them in an arcane tongue or whispering them in a gravel voice... that's just "color". There doesn't need to be a rule for everything.

So why don't humans who want to be bards play just Human or MU/Th who plays musical instruments?

In fact, when there aren't those rules, it encourages players to come up with colorful idioms to distinguish their characters.

That works even if the rules don't have arbitrary differences between races. If there's bards, they should be for everyone, so everyone can get the bard kind of magic, or there shouldn't be bards at all, and everyone should be encouraged to come up with colourful idioms to distinguish their characters. But nothing of this 6 of one, half a dozen of the other approach.

Plus, you seem to have approached 3e from only one side: You pick a class and build a character around it. Nothing wrong with that, but there's another way: think of a character and take those rules choices that fit best. Now 3e, for the first time, allows you to do that and always get just what you want, without looking first whether that particular combination is allowed by your race. If you want to go straight bard (skillfull with musical magic and abilities to inspire his comrades) you can that with human, elf, halforc, whatever. If you want a rogue/wizard combo (backstabbing and agile and with magic that draws power from your intellect), you can do that, too, no matter what race you went for.

 

[jeffh]

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.

I see this sort of complaint a lot but I'm no closer to understanding it than I was six years ago. I mean, you just listed three things that people never did under 2E because there were no rules for them and who knew how the DM would rule on any given day, whereas 3E does have ways to handle every single one of them.

If your group insists on playing in ways that aren't mechanically supported under 2E, and refuse to play in ways that are mechanically supported in 3E, I don't see how you can possibly blame the rules for that. It's the exact opposite of the result I'd expect if the rules had anything to do with it.

 

[Delta]

...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.

Here's my broad-based take on it. 3rd Edition made some things a lot more streamlined, and they're really nice -- to-hit rolls, AC, ability modifiers and checks, saving throws, and multiclassing. But at the same time it added a lot of complexity in brand new areas -- like the feat system, skill system, combat options, etc. It's more point-oriented than random table oriented. It emphasizes using miniatures in all combats. Making monsters and NPCs is hellaciously complicated for the DM, since you have rules dictating how to account for all the hit dice, attack and save bases, feats, skill points, adjustments, magic item price guidelines and purchasing, etc. Lots and lots of spells changed from 2E (effects, level, etc.)

 

[Korgoth]

Nah, the whole art loving is so not bard.

Not relevant.

One of the worst things back then. "Do you want to play an elf or a fighter?" That's like "do you want steak or do you want to have a drink with your food?" Apples and oranges. I'm glad D&D moved away from calling everything fruit.

But an Elf is not just a pointy-eared human. It is something different: elves have a certain way of life and culture. They don't spend 100 years growing up just to become a cutpurse. All elves study magic and all elves learn swordsmanship. It's just part of their cultural values... it's how they do things.

So why don't humans who want to be bards play just Human or MU/Th who plays musical instruments?

In Classic bard isn't a separate class anyway. Anybody can be a guy who plays music and sings. A fighter who does this is like a nordic skald. A magic-user who does this is a singing spellcaster. A thief who does this is an entertaining rogue, etc. It's just color. If you want to have magic songs, play a class that casts magic. If you're a cleric of a musical diety, maybe you sing your cleric spells.

Plus, you seem to have approached 3e from only one side: You pick a class and build a character around it. Nothing wrong with that, but there's another way: think of a character and take those rules choices that fit best. Now 3e, for the first time, allows you to do that and always get just what you want, without looking first whether that particular combination is allowed by your race. If you want to go straight bard (skillfull with musical magic and abilities to inspire his comrades) you can that with human, elf, halforc, whatever. If you want a rogue/wizard combo (backstabbing and agile and with magic that draws power from your intellect), you can do that, too, no matter what race you went for.

I think it makes the races into just variant humans (even 1e and 2e with their class restrictions implied some distinction among the races, although I don't like the idea of demihuman thieves). And I don't see that classes really ought to be that flexible. Maybe it's just from anime, but there seems to be an idea that a 19 year old hero should be able to do acrobatics, be a swordmaster and have an emeritus knowledge of arcane lore all at once. I don't buy it: any one of those things takes a life of single-minded study.

I see this sort of complaint a lot but I'm no closer to understanding it than I was six years ago. I mean, you just listed three things that people never did under 2E because there were no rules for them and who knew how the DM would rule on any given day, whereas 3E does have ways to handle every single one of them.

If your group insists on playing in ways that aren't mechanically supported under 2E, and refuse to play in ways that are mechanically supported in 3E, I don't see how you can possibly blame the rules for that. It's the exact opposite of the result I'd expect if the rules had anything to do with it.

There is a "sweet spot" when it comes to rules saturation. After that point, that "via media" or center of balance, the more rules you add the less you're able to do in the game. As soon as you add a feat called "Boomrunner" then nobody else can run on booms. As soon as you add a "Trenchrider" feat where a mounted combatant can run his horse through a trench disrupting the defenders, then nobody can pull that stunt unless they have the feat. They become restrictions on the imagination. Then character creation becomes like constructing a Magic deck: what "powers" am I going to take for this "build". Rubbish and hogwash! Anybody can pull cool stunts. They're heroes. It's like DMs who call for a skill check to climb a tree or hunt a rabbit. If the adventurers are such clowns that they even have to roll for it, I'm sorry the fate of the kingdom is in their hands.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

But at the same time it added a lot of complexity in brand new areas -- like the feat system, skill system, combat options, etc.

The beauty of it is that this can be as easy or as complex as you want:

Skills: Just pick x skills and max them (like a human fighter with 12 int, you max out 4 skills - 2 for fighter, 1 for int, 1 for human). I'd say that's not harder or more complex than picking your non-weapon proficiencies or messing with your thief skills. If you want, though, you can go go all the way with cross-class and synergy and all that. Not a must, a can.

Same for feats: Just go with the PHB feats if you don't want any hassle. There's some obvious choices for most concepts and classes. But, of course, you can go crazy and get the crazy stuff.

It emphasizes using miniatures in all combats.

Doesn't require it, though.

And whenever this comes up, I remember one particular 2e session I played in where I would have killed for minis (or the DM not trinking - him being slightly drunk at the time could have something to do with the situation).

It boiled down to this: The party fighting a bunch of bad guys and the following out of game conversation taking place:

DM "So, each of you gets two guys attacking him."
Player1 "Not me, I'm standing in the hallway shooting into the room with my bow"
DM "Alright, your guys attack player 2 instead"
P2 "Huh? they already dropped me, do they really want to slit my throat with three guys when there's several other guys around?"
DM "Fine. They attack only you two then Players 3 and 4"
P3 "Not me, I'm not even there, I went my own ways 10 minutes ago"
P4 "Alright, they just all attack you P4"

Would have loved to use a battlemat back then.

You don't need minis for that, either. Just use M&M's, and eat what you vanquish!

Making monsters and NPCs is hellaciously complicated for the DM, since you have rules dictating how to account for all the hit dice, attack and save bases, feats, skill points, adjustments, magic item price guidelines and purchasing, etc. Lots and lots of spells changed from 2E (effects, level, etc.)

The changes to 2e stuff are a temporary problem until you got used to it(and not a problem with 3e itself)
As for the rest: It's not that hard. Most monsters can just be advanced by monster HD, so you increase the attacks and saves accordingly, get some very basic feats, increase the skills by the number of extra hd, and you're done, basically.

If you add HD (or build an NPC from scratch), you don't have to sweat the small details, either: You don't have to get all the skills completely done - just wing it, do some general stuff. If you want to make a memorable character, you can still fine-tune everything up to the last skill point, but it works remarkably well without.

It again means that you can have it simple, or you can have it complex (which also means that you can determine every little detail).

That's how I made most of my NPCs (assuming I wasn't just running them straight out of some book - the NPC chards from the DMG can generate NPCs in a couple of minutes, and there's hordes of them out there, and not only in books you have to buy, but on the net, for free. There's d20 Character Wikis out there and all.)

Adding to that, I build some NPCs to sic on my players, putting almost the same effort into it as I do creating a starting character for a campaign (real personality has to be built up during play - all the background is nice and well and important, but it's really all about how the other players will see him). That way, I got to try this wacky character Idea or that - stuff that sounds funny for a session or two but wouldn't really be a great character for a whole campaign. Well, they only have to last for that one combat. If you've got lots of character concepts you want to try out as a player but can't, because you can't find 25 campaigns to play in at once, the best thing you can do is run a campaign!

 

[Pants]

But an Elf is not just a pointy-eared human. It is something different: elves have a certain way of life and culture. They don't spend 100 years growing up just to become a cutpurse. All elves study magic and all elves learn swordsmanship. It's just part of their cultural values... it's how they do things.

Depending upon the campaign setting of course.