ADnD 2nd ED VS. 3.5

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In AD&D, learn to fight like an elf or you'll die like an orc.

Ah, taking away options. Right. I guess all those thieves should have been dual-wielding too.

 

[Virel]

Ah, taking away options. Right. I guess all those thieves should have been dual-wielding too.

My comment was meant in jest.

Taking away options? Hardly...it was the players choice they could fight however they wished. An ordinary dex made dual weapon a -2/-4 for each weapon to hit.

Some feats in 3e are better than others...that is hardly talking away choices.

Some players wanted to keep the shield for AC. As magic shields were found this style worked. Some players wanted a free hand so they could do other stuff in melee. Some liked two handed weapons as they were most difficult to knock out of ones grasp.

Many thieves were dual-wielding in the games I ran or played in provided their dex was good.

My current M/T is dual-wielding with a long sword and dagger. I'll be happy when she gets another weapon proficiency slot so she can eliminate the penalty for not being proficient with a dagger.

 

[Ranger REG]

Customization of specialty priests

Isn't that a variant rule?

 

[Staffan]

Isn't that a variant rule?

Actually, the way I read the 2e PHB at least, I understood that the priest class was expected to be customized. They then provided the cleric and druid as examples of how a priest was supposed to look.

 

[Ranger REG]

Actually, the Warrior, Priest, Rogue, and Wizards are group names in 2e.

 

[ForceUser]

i prefer OD&D.

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

Sure, it was a great idea for its time, just like the telegraph, the biplane, and the horseless carriage. Progress marches on, however, and young minds bring fresh ideas that improve upon older ones. Just like 3E improves upon all previous versions of the game.

I love 3E. I am a convert, a disciple, an unrepentant addict, a raving cultist, a lunatic adherent. Future versions of the game have a high, high standard to exceed; I may never convert to another edition.

I could never regress to 2E. That way lies madness. I look forward to a golden, 2E-less paradise.

 

[Virel]

Sure, it was a great idea for its time, just like the telegraph, the biplane, and the horseless carriage. Progress marches on, however, and young minds bring fresh ideas that improve upon older ones. Just like 3E improves upon all previous versions of the game.

I love 3E. I am a convert, a disciple, an unrepentant addict, a raving cultist, a lunatic adherent. Future versions of the game have a high, high standard to exceed; I may never convert to another edition.

I could never regress to 2E. That way lies madness. I look forward to a golden, 2E-less paradise.

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion so I'll post mine too.

I think 3e is better than 2e ed too

As for being "better" than OAD&D, there are a lot things OAD&D can do faster and better than 3e. OAD&D rocks when used to run a nine player, three adventure party, 28 PC campaign due to it's extremely flexiable nature. The deadly nature of OAD&D generally makes it more intense compared to 3e and I've played both. OAD&D can allow for just as much role play and character development too, of course a wise player waits until around 4th level before worrying too much about "developing" the character.

Of course either version can suck if the DM isn't up to the task. 3e works very hard to protect the player from bad DM's. I think 3e is more robust and able to flow fairly well even with a bad DM due to rules for everything. This protects the player from DM's with bad judgement.

It really comes down to what one does with their favorite flavor of D&D. I'll take the main course in OAD&D and keep 3e as snack food.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

-snip- OAD&D rocks when used to run a nine player, three adventure party, 28 PC campaign -snip-

I agree with much of the rest of what you said, but when you hit this point, isn't it time to switch over to Warhammer?

 

[Ron]

Once you go 3e, you can't ever go back playing 2nd. The simple and streamlined rules meant that I could come up with ideas without asking for a DM on how his particular interpretation of the rules was (even initiative: I've never had two 2e groups use the same rules). As a Dm, it means that I don't have to constantly explain how I interpret the rules, and focus on the important stuff.

Of course, I have houseruled and "Unearthed Arcana"d my session to even greater heights of simplicity.

Rav

Actually, you can. I returned to D&D with the 3rd edition, when I run a game from 1st to 7th level. Quite frankly, I didn't like it too much as it was too tactical and it replaced the myriad of AD&D rules with a myriad of rules exceptions in the guise of feats. Later, I played the Return of the Temple of Elemental Evil with a DM who was obsessed with the tactical options. I didn't liked the adventure -- although it's no fault of 3e -- and I hated the highly tactical game. I used to called it the fantasy version of Advanced Squad Leader. As a matter of fact, most of the party didn't liked the game.

About a year ago, I played a couple of sessions of AD&D 2nd edition and, although I dislike many of the rules, I thought the game as a better feeling than 3e. Currently, I am runing a game with the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, which I think it is the peak of D&D development.

Don't misunderstand me, 3e is a fine game. It just don't provides the right game experience for me.

 

[Dr Simon]

I left D&D back in about 1986 when I was running a campaign in 6th form college and house-ruling so much that it was no longer D&D. Switched to RuneQuest as a mechanic and stayed for years.

I only really bought D&D 3 because of the whole d20 phenomenon and the possibilities inherent in the OGL. Sure, it seems quite complex at first but mostly it fits together neatly and the unified rolling mechanic appealed to the RQer in me. I recently converted the characters from that old college campaign into 3rd ed. and discovered that a *lot* of my house rules (in multi-classing and saving throws for example) were pretty similar. Made me smile .

I currently play a fighter in a 1st/2nd ed game. My character is defined more by her magical items than anything inherent. And it *isn't* possible to play a viable DEX-based fighter in 1st Ed. My character is fine with missile weapons (which do pathetic damage compared to my 18/% compatriots in melee) and has a great AC, but she loses out on a 10% XP bonus due to not being a beefcake. Dumb rule. Further, there are no feats to take advantage of her DEX.

Sure, she's defined by her personality compared to the others and I have to admit that the same character in 3rd Ed. in the same armour loses some of her DEX bonus, but I prefer the 3rd ed. version.

As to proliferation of splatbooks, that's more of a D&D thing than an edition thing - 3,5 seems to be going the same way as 2nd did but you don't *have* to buy them.

Comparing just the PHB, DMG and MM between 2nd and 3rd, I prefer the more coherent rule-set of 3rd. 1st has a certain simplistic appeal as a beer 'n' pretzels game where new characters are easy to roll up, but I just prefer the d20 engine as a mechanic.