ADnD 2nd ED VS. 3.5

[Mythmere1]

My sense is that (my personal preferences) 1E was so cool (it was D&D) that I forgave its rules-flaws, 2E should have fixed those flaws but didn't, which made me quite unforgiving of it, 3E fixed those flaws wonderfully, but did such a good job that it changed the feel of the game (slowed pacing), and Castles & Crusades gives me the best mix of 3E-type mechanics but faster pacing of the game.

I think I'm unusual for liking 3E better than 2E but preferring C&C over both.

 

[Psychic Warrior]

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.

You are talking about RP differences and I think most everyone else is talking about mechanical differences. Feats, skills and the like.

2E was Ok - a lot cleaner than 1E but it also led to my eventually abandoning D&D in the 90's and playing other games. I wanted to return to D&D but was bored with the system. 3E energized me to the point that I run several different d20 games but I've finally returned to my first love - D&D.

 

[RFisher]

now, here's an odd question... how many people who say they left D&D because of 2E would *not* have left if D&D went straight from 1E to something exactly like 3E or 3.5?

2e didn't really run me off. (It may have actually made me stick with AD&D a bit longer.)

If 2e had been 3e, though, I may not have not jumped ship when I did. 3e has a lot of the things I was looking for when I left AD&D.

It's hard to say what would have happened then. In the long run, I still probably would have switched to other games eventually & finally come back to really appreciating OAD&D & classic D&D in a way I didn't in the 1990s.

I think you may be right, though. If 2e lost half the AD&D players, a 3e-esque 2e might have lost even more.

I almost wish that I hadn't been so quick to switch to AD&D. Probably most of the things that I like about 3e is where its similar to classic D&D rather than AD&D. (In the late 1990s, I'd been thinking about a simplified AD&D that borrowed a lot from classic D&D. That was why I was so excited about 3e--because it included, or seemed to include, a lot of the ideas I was considering.)

Still, I wouldn't trade my AD&D experiences for anything. I'm happy to have rediscovered classic D&D & don't really regret that I didn't stick with it all along.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I have some fond memories of the games I played and ran in 1e and 2e. The systems didn't really do what I wanted them to do, but I still had fun. Those editions opened to door to RPG's, a hobby I dearly love, and got me to try other systems that I enjoyed even more (Alternity).

Kane

 

[Darth K'Trava]

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.

I usually wait until I've played a character awhile before even thinking of development and backstory. I like to wait until I get a "feel" for a character before I write her backstory. I did that for a cleric. Played her for awhile, then wrote the backstory to support how she developed the personality she had.... And that was 3e with the character going from 11th to abt 18th or so before I did the backstory for her.

So far, haven't given much thought abt my now-4th level wizard.....

 

[reanjr]

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.

That's how I read it.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Originally Posted by Staffan
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.

So, what was the difference between "clerics" and "priests"? I thought those terms were interchangeable.... Or is that 3e thinking?

 

[BOZ]

preist encompassed all classes that were primarily divine spellcasters: clerics, druids, and specialty priests. specialty priests were like clerics, but they were devoted a specific god in such a way that their powers could be vastly different.

 

[T. Foster]

My favorite editions of D&D are 1st ed. AD&D and OD&D (pre-supplements; IMO if you're using all the OD&D supplements you might as well be playing AD&D), pretty much neck and neck. Later editions of Classic D&D (Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, RC) I like a bit less well -- and like each subsequent edition slightly less than the one before. I've never actually played 3E/3.5E/d20 and have no particular desire to (I'm perfectly satisfied with the editions I have, and 3E feels too quantitative IMO -- too much seeming influence from MtG and CRPGs) but don't bear it the sort of ill will that a lot of earlier edition die-hards do (though I do wish WOTC would return some version of earlier (pre-2E) D&D to print as a 'collector's' or 'nostalgia' edition for people who prefer that style of game).

I save all of my ill will for 2E (including late-period/post-Gygax 1E), which IMO was a truly terrible game and pretty much wrecked D&D. All of the rules-stuff that was undeniably clunky and awkward but nonetheless seemed (at least to me) to 'fit' and 'make sense' in the context of 1E was carried over into 2E but the context was sufficiently changed that it no longer fit or made sense and was just, well, awkward and clunky. And then they made it even worse by adding even more layers of awkward and clunky stuff (kits, specialty wizards and priests, all the PO stuff, etc.) on top of that. I'm thoroughly convinced that the people behind 2E had no real idea of what it actually was that made D&D 'tick' in the first place and were relying solely on brand-identity and customer inertia to carry them forward (which it did, at least for awhile). 2E drove me away from D&D -- after running a 2E campaign for about a year we were all so disgusted by it that we gave up D&D and played other rpgs (RuneQuest, WFRP, and DJ/Mythus were our most frequently played fantasy games). 3E is what brought me back. Well, sort of -- the wave of enthusiasm aroused by 3E inspired me to take another look at D&D, but instead of buying into 3E (I looked at it on the game-store shelf but was turned off by the bulk of the rulebooks (and general unfamiliarity of the rules beyond a few common (mostly jargon-related) touchstones) and the art/graphics-style) I went back to my original loves -- OD&D and 1E AD&D.

So IMO 3E/3.5E/d20 > 2E, but (for my own particular tastes and purposes) 1E & OD&D > 3E.

Regards,

 

[T. Foster]

now, here's an odd question... how many people who say they left D&D because of 2E would *not* have left if D&D went straight from 1E to something exactly like 3E or 3.5? i think the drastic change would have scared off more people than 2E did. 3E seems to become acceptable in many people's mind as a refreshing change after a long period of time, rather than a sudden one.

Interesting question. I imagine I probably would've thrown a screaming fit if D&D had gone straight from 1E to 3E/3.5/d20, but at least the shift would've been obvious and blatant. That's what was (at least in my experience) so insidious about 2E -- on the surface it looked almost exactly like 1E (1E cleaned up and better organized and made easier to understand) and it was only after playing it for a few months that I began to realize that 2E was actually 1E stripped of all the things that (IMO) made 1E 'cool,' and that all that was left behind was the detritus of clunky and awkward rules and a cheesy Terry Brooks/Tolkein-lite atmosphere. 3E/3.5E/d20 is (despite what the logos say) "not D&D" to me -- it's a separate game with a lot of the same tropes and trappings but a completely different ruleset and (seemingly) underlying philosophy. Therefore I tend to think of 3E the same way I think of Chivalry & Sorcery, Tunnels & Trolls, Rolemaster, Dragonquest and all those other D&D-esque fantasty rpgs that I didn't play back in the 80s -- I don't have any problem with it, and don't really give it a second thought at all (except for some mild annoyance that it's "squatting" on the D&D brand-name and that if I try to talk about MY D&D to somebody they'll probably assume I'm actually talking about this other game). 2E, OTOH, IS still D&D to me, it's just D&D reimagined in such a way that it holds none of the same appeal (and is, in fact rather inane and in many ways downright embarrassing). And I find that much more bothersome. But maybe that's just me...