ADnD 2nd ED VS. 3.5

[TragicShaman]

Which system do you prefer and why?

I currently only run 2nd ED ADnD games (using the black bound books, love the look) but I believe I do it mainly outta laziness and a cetain factor of comfort. I own the main three 3.5 books and have even managed to read them, and while there are some interesting changes and the layout and artwork is pretty sweet. I just cant let go of the older stuff.
I have even been known to break out the 1st ED stuff from time to time...

Anyways which system do you prefer?

Tragic (Not my roommate)

 

[EricNoah]

(A fair warning ahead of time -- EN World has a pretty strong tradition of not allowing "edition wars" to take place. This thread may not last long. And this is a topic that has come up many times in the past, so you may just get a lot of folks linking you to earlier discussions. And finally, a bulk of the active members started with 2E or even earlier, so they do tend to know what they are talking about.)

2E was a great step in the direction of character customization, in the form of kits. It also brought out a lot of great campaign settings (Planescape, Dark Sun, Birthright to name a few). I have great memories of many wonderful campaigns from those days.

But I would never go back to playing the actual system. 3.0/3.5 does the trick for me now, as do its minor d20 variants (AU, M&M, etc.).

 

[TragicShaman]

Warning heeded, not my intention to start an editions war... sorry.

If someone can post a link or something to one of the other threads I am very interested in learning peoples views of the old stuff compared to the new stuff. And hearing the good points of 3.5 as I would like to break out of my comfort zone and mayhap start running some newer stuff.

Again, sorry and hopefully an Edition war does not ensue.

Tragic (not my roommate)

 

[Doug McCrae]

I greatly prefer 3rd ed (3.0 and 3.5 are pretty similar IMO) to any previous edition of the game, even the much loved Rules Cyclopedia. I liked 2nd ed, thought it was a big improvement on 1st, with much cleaner and clearer rules. Didn't much like the settings for it, except Spelljammer and Birthright.

3rd ed's great though. Options galore, a unified rules system, rules for most everything you want to do and interesting tactical combat. The fluff was always good. Now at last the crunch is too.

 

[Shemeska]

I use 2e fluff (Planescape has not since been equaled) but I use 3e rules (since I started playing in 3e). I've found the 3.X numbers to be a bit easier, though as 3.5 evolves I can see it backstepping into some 2e numbers concepts with adding more and more 'base classes' that end up more or less doing the same thing that 2e kits did. Still, I find that the fluff written for many 2e books was, at its best, far better quality than the average 3.x book that has seen abbreviated descriptions, lack of monster ecology and details, pages of deity stats rather than descriptions of clergy/holidays/theology/etc.

I'm something of an enigma perhaps, a 3e neophyte that goes back to 2e for inspiration and settings.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I agree with Shemeska.

I find 3e makes it easier to build a character the way you want to, plus the rules are more consistent. (I won't say more balanced though )

But neither will ever match D20 Modern for sheer flexibility.

 

[scourger]

For me, it's probably because it's new. I didn't like it at first, but I grew to love it after reading it. It's a more coesive system with more portability to other games & genres, especially with the licenses.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I know some 1/2e folks don't like the "munchkin" character generation and building that goes along with 3e. I can see their point. My personal feeling is that 3e puts more decision making into the hands of the player and you want the players making as many decisions as you can in the game to help them become more of a participant and less of a spectator.

2e took some great steps in this direction, 3e just went a little further.

And, for what it's worth, my favorite CRPG is a 2e game, Planescape Torment.

 

[Virel]

This is real a question of personal taste...so I'll give you my .02

I dislike 2e overall. The three core books are ok but the de-gygaxification of them cause these books to become boring to read. There are some excellent 2e products like Return to the Tomb of Horrors but there is also lot of lame railroad story adventures some of the Forgotten Realms stuff is like that. Some of the early splat books like the Complete Fighter are ok in small amounts etc. Due to a shortage of 1st ed PHB's I did let a group of players use the 2ed PHB, but the game remained a defacto 1st ed AD&D game. Deep down I think 2e was what killed TSR by alienating about 1/2 of the AD&D players back in 1989. While I finally put that aside, the mess that came out in the late years of 2e is unforgiveable.

I like 3e all in all. It's not my favorite but I play and enjoy playing. Keeping to the three core books 3e can take on a 1st ed feel sometimes. Being along time wargamer, I can appreicate the tighter rule set. The loose rule set really turned me off to early D&D, after being used to games like Squad Leader, Star Fleet Battles, Rise & Decline of the Third Reich etc. At times I get annoyed at 3e for it's simplistic d20 mechanic. I think of 3e as really a "fixed" version of the problem child late 2e.

Since I have a long time still running 1st ed AD&D campaign, that is my favorite as it can be very fast paced due to it's very simple game mechanics. Steal the best bits of 2e and a few choice ideas from 3e and 1st ed is hard to beat IMO.

 

[Piratecat]

It's funny -- I'm a lot more sensitive to 1e vs 3e edition wars than I am to 2e vs 3e. Personal predilictions, I suspect.

Switching to 3e really improved my campaign. It allowed me to keep the game fun and challenging way past the point where we would have stopped with 2e. I can't argue with that kind of benefit.