ADnD 2nd ED VS. 3.5

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Much as I'm nostalgic for BD&D and 1E (I skipped most of the 2E era), I still much prefer 3/3.5E. Though it's much more complex to DM, I like the cleaner, more consistent, easier to learn rules set and wider range of balanced options. I was a wargamer like Virel, and I appreciate a tight rules set. Heck, I was playing the original Baldur's Gate (2E rules) for a couple of hours today, and felt positively bored with character progression ... every fighting-type was just like every other fighting type! And I couldn't play the halfling druid I wanted ...

On the average, though, I find I prefer the older (pre 1985) adventures, updating them to the new rules. That's probably nostalgia speaking more than anything else, though. There's a stylistic element that crept into mid-to-late 1E adventures that carried into 2E where the "Story" tended to take precedence over player choices. I blame Dragonlance, personally. I think much of that has been rolled back, particularly with some of the "First Edition Feel" d20 publishers (Necromancer, Goodman), but it's not entirely gone (witness WOTC's Whispers of the Vampire's Blade).

All the editions are good in their own right (cue diaglo ...), but I do like 3.5 best of all as a total package. I'm sure 4E, when it comes, will be good too.

 

[DragonLancer]

I really like 2nd edition AD&D, it was a vast improovement over 1st edition. I also really like 3rd edition. Despite certain concerns, I prefer 3rd edition over the prior one.

Unlike some gamers experiences I never found 2nd edition to support twinking and munckinism. Not even with the excessive splatbooks. Maybe I just had great players at the time who never wanted to do so, I don't know. The system was easier and not so open to different interpretations.

Third edition is more module, everything slots together better, but because of that it is far too open to twinkery. The rules are easy to understand though some (AoO's in my case) don't really fit all that well. It also helps that you have the OGL. Now you are able to find a dozen different versions of a certain topic and choose the one you like rather than being lumbered with one company's view.

I'd love to go back and play a nostalgic 2nd edition game, but 3rd edition is where it really is at.

 

[Psion]

I think what you'll find is that folks here almost universally prefer the 3e ruleset over the 2e ruleset, but many find that there was idea material in 2e (like Planescape, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc.) in 2e that has not been matched by WotC under 3.x e.

I personally was very reluctant to switch at first, having a pretty thoroughly defined set of house rules for my game world which I was comfortable with. But after I saw the approach of the 3e MM (which did some things with respect to customizing monsters not easily done in 2e), I was persuaded to actually try running a few games of it. I started a "side game" of 3e while I continued running my main 2e game.

After a month, I was hooked and ditched 2e in favor of 3e for my main game.

So you might consider giving it a try. Some things are different and daunting, but really work well once you get used to them. (Multiclassing was one of them. I had already house ruled out the distinction between multi and dual classing, but was still comfortable splitting XP, and was reluctant to go to the 3e method. Now I don't know how I could stand the 2e method.)

 

[jester47]

2e I find is fine if you avoid the brown books. The Monsterous Manual, Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide (all revised) alone are a pretty good game. Tome of Magic and Book of Artifacts are not too bad.

As far as 2e went, the best thing to come out of that was Planescape. But there is good planescape and bad planescape (and the bad aint that bad). 1996 was the off year for planescape I think. Parts of FR got pretty rancid in 2e. Things really started to drag in 1994 - 1996. Good parts were Elminsters Ecologies, Ruins of Undermountain (the first only), City of Spledours, The North, and then 1997 rolled in and things got better. you can do OK with the 3 2e revised core books and some of the supplements.

1e had staying power and its supplements didn't start to drag it down until way late in the game (in fact you could say they were really early 2e supplements). 2e was mediocre and the dead weight of all the not-so-great supplements made it bad. 3e is a really great system that has a few not-so-great supplements that will sink it to mediocre if you use em.

All these systems are ok to great. The trick is to be (really) choosy with the supplements. This is all my opinion.

Aaron.

 

[devoblue]

I love the elegant simplicity of the 3e rules compared to earlier versions. The mechanics of everthing makes sense and it is easy to see how to modify or extend the game without breaking it. When I first read through the 3e PHB, the first thing I noticed was the changes to ability scores: No percentile strength, no limits of 25, and bonuses and penalties that were simple and consistent. This was such an elegant and simple solution to something that before had never been a problem but now seemed quite absurd. I can understand why others prefer the earlier editions, but for me those books just live on the bookshelf for nostalgia.

The system to extend the game is built into the core game, so you can create your own feats or PrC's, and balance them with other feats and PrCs. Create a magic item and you can work out its cost by formula. I see these as tools that greatly enhance the balance of additional published material, but some publishers of course can't always get it right.

At the same time the game seems to be much more sterile than the rawness on 1e and the balance of 2e. If you have experienced those versions, then it is something that you can recreate. I don't think I would like to play in a campaign run by those who had only seen 3e (maybe).

If there was a game I wanted to get into, it woulnt matter to me what version it was as long as the inconsistencies could be contained. I see 3e as going a long way to preventing inconsistencies in the first place. I wouldnt run anything but 3.5e these days.

 

[sfedi]

I barely tolerated AD&D rules, I couldn't game with them.
I played Rolemaster and other RPGS.
When 3E came up, I knew this was good.

So, there it is, I prefer much more 3.X, because of the rules.

The settings, I don't consider them part of the system.

 

[BOZ]

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.).

entirely agreed, very much.

 

[Andre]

I think what you'll find is that folks here almost universally prefer the 3e ruleset over the 2e ruleset, but many find that there was idea material in 2e (like Planescape, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, etc.) in 2e that has not been matched by WotC under 3.x e.

That pretty much sums it up for me. Mechanically, 3E is much superior to any of the previous editions. Most of my own (and some others) complaints have to do with the fact that the 3E core books don't seem as evocative as the earlier material. Put simply, they read like computer manuals.

If you already have a lot of the old material, I strongly recommend downloading the SRD and giving the new system a try. If you like it, you can consider picking up the core books (not strictly necessary, but some key stuff is missing, like mind flayers and beholders).

BTW, the design philosophy behind 3E was to provide official rules for almost every situation. While this helps protect players from a bad GM's arbitrary rulings, it can also lead a gaming group into focusing too much on finding the "right" rule, instead of just playing. Don't fall for that trap and I think you'll like the system.

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.

Some of the rules changes I most like in the new system:
*AC goes up!
*BAB (Base Attack Bonus) instead of the old to hit charts
*Multiclassing much simpler
*Initiative much simpler
*Feats provide a simple method to customize characters, monsters, classes
*Skill system (though I think too few points are given to most classes)
*Only three saves, and these (almost always) make sense
*Character customization improved - you can have 3 6th-level fighters in the same party and they could be very different from each other.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I never cared much for 2nd edition, though I loved 1st. When 3e came out, I really, REALLY liked it, but I've since gotten tired of the endless powergaming and 3 hour battles with a handful of mooks, and AOO this and tumble that. I still have a lot of fun PLAYING 3e, but I'll never, ever dm it again.


I have never under stood why people think 1e or 2e characters were all alike. I've played a dark, brooding fighter, a dumb, hulking brute, and a swashbuckling rake. They were all completely different.

 

[Turanil]

Anyways which system do you prefer?

I am the type of person who quickly get dissatisfied by anything, and thus look forward to changes, improvements, etc. Maybe I should seek a psychiatrist rather than a new edition of the game?

Anyway, I am tired of D&D 3.5 and am eagerly looking forward to play D&D 4.0... (No, kidding... )

Well, since the advent of 3.0 I abandonned AD&D 2e; then, with the advent of 3.5, I abandonned 3.0. What I see is that with each new edition of the game, I have less desire to houserule and mess up with the system. Hence, I can only guess that with D&D 5.0 I will be perfectly satisfied and will stop there.