I'm thinking of going back to 2e!

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'm way late to the party, but I'll throw out another "C&C sounds right up your alley" post. BFRPG is an excellent choice, too. Lastly, I wouldn't let THAC0 or level-limits keep me from running 2E -- those are really minor issues, IMO.

 

[shadow]

Oh yay!

Another "Hey, hey! Goodbye!" thread.

I never intended this to be a "goodbye" thread; I stated up front that I like 3e. The intention of this thread was to point out that, contrary to apparent popular belief, 2e had some really good material written for it. Secondly, much of this great material hasn't been converted to 3e, and is rather difficult to convert.

For example:

DarkSun - I loved this setting because it was so different. There exist several unofficial conversions, but they fail to capture the feel of the setting as presented in 2e. Part of the reason it is so hard to capture the feel of the setting with 3e rules is that the setting was inherently unbalanced! The evil defilers gained experience twice as fast because defiling magic was easier to master. With 3e all classes gain XP at the same rate, eliminating the corrupting lure of defiling magic.
In 2e Dark Sun all character had a psionic "wild talent". How would this work in 3e? Would all characters gain a free level of psion? A random psionic power? Would I have to redo the entire 3.5e psionics system?

Ravenloft - Another favorite setting of mine. The problem here is not that 3e rules fail to work with the setting, but rather the time it would take to convert everything. White Wolf's Ravenloft focused way to much on the core domains (which I always felt were way to clichéd) and left out the Islands of Terror which made the setting worthwhile (IMHO). All of the Darklords of those domains were written under 2e rules which were based on a different set of assumptions than 3e. Sure, I could convert them to 3e, but I would have to rebuild them from ground up trying to come up with class, skills, and feat selection that emulate the way the character was portrayed under 2e rules.

I say try Castles and Crusades...it sounds exactly like what you're looking for.

Sounds good. The more that I see about Castles and Crusades, the more I like it. BTW, with a 3rd printing of the PHB coming out, do you think it would be worthwhile to wait for it?

 

[Imaro]

Sounds good. The more that I see about Castles and Crusades, the more I like it. BTW, with a 3rd printing of the PHB coming out, do you think it would be worthwhile to wait for it?

The only rules addition/eratta that the third printing is suppose to have is a correction to the Assasin's Poison costs, otherwise it's just typos and a different color (a little darker) cover. So really it's up to you. I know the third printing should be in stock soon so if you don't have plans to run right now then I say wait. If you want to run now, the corrected charts are suppose to be( I believe) in the 2nd printing of Monsters and Treasures, as well as the After Winters Dark campaign folio.

 

[Dragonhelm]

OK, first, I think absolutes are kinda silly. Of course if I ran across someone running a 2e (or earlier edition) game, and they were cool and the game looked fun, I’d play. Being hard-nosed about playing a game, which is essentially just a way for people to socialize, seems fairly antisocial.

Personally, I don't ever say, "I'll never play X system again." Truth of the matter is, if the game is fun and the folks playing are cool, then I'm going to play. I'd play AD&D, D&D 3e, C&C, whatever. I just want to game!

The intention of this thread was to point out that, contrary to apparent popular belief, 2e had some really good material written for it.

Absolutely.

It's kind of a pet peeve of mine to see people put down a prior system's products just for not being the current system (and vice versa). Yet if we put the rules aside, there are some great flavor pieces to be found.

For example, the 2e Arms and Equipment Guide is one of the best sources for weapons out there. In my humble opinion, it beats the socks off of its 3rd edition counterpart.

Where 2e shines, though, is in settings. I loved many of the settings released during the day, and that love continues to today.

DarkSun - I loved this setting because it was so different. There exist several unofficial conversions, but they fail to capture the feel of the setting as presented in 2e. Part of the reason it is so hard to capture the feel of the setting with 3e rules is that the setting was inherently unbalanced! The evil defilers gained experience twice as fast because defiling magic was easier to master. With 3e all classes gain XP at the same rate, eliminating the corrupting lure of defiling magic.

Right, Dark Sun is very much a 2e world. I've seen a couple of official adaptations (Athas.org as official site and Paizo as official D&D content) and both have good elements to them, but both kind of miss the point in certain cases.

In 2e Dark Sun all character had a psionic "wild talent". How would this work in 3e? Would all characters gain a free level of psion? A random psionic power? Would I have to redo the entire 3.5e psionics system?

In the Dragon conversion, I believe each race had an inherent psionic power. What I would recommend would be for each character to gain the Hidden Talent feat as a bonus, giving them a 1st level power for free. Just say all characters get it for free across the board, and you're good.

Ravenloft - Another favorite setting of mine. The problem here is not that 3e rules fail to work with the setting, but rather the time it would take to convert everything. White Wolf's Ravenloft focused way to much on the core domains (which I always felt were way to clichéd) and left out the Islands of Terror which made the setting worthwhile (IMHO). All of the Darklords of those domains were written under 2e rules which were based on a different set of assumptions than 3e. Sure, I could convert them to 3e, but I would have to rebuild them from ground up trying to come up with class, skills, and feat selection that emulate the way the character was portrayed under 2e rules.

To me, the charm of Ravenloft was that it tied to all the D&D settings. In those regards, it was also very much a 2e setting (since all the settings were tied together in 2e). I grabbed the original Ravenloft setting book for 3e, and really found it lacking.

And you're right, conversion time is something to consider. Is it better to convert everything, or play a system that isn't your favorite because all the books are already using that system?

Sounds good. The more that I see about Castles and Crusades, the more I like it. BTW, with a 3rd printing of the PHB coming out, do you think it would be worthwhile to wait for it?

It could be, though a lot of the errors from the 1st printing were already caught. I'm not sure what the differences will be between 2nd and 3rd printings.

C&C really grew on me in that it had a lot of what I liked about all editions of D&D. In a way, it's the "lost edition," being a bridge between 2e and 3e. When I started looking at C&C, I felt like I could use my favorite old books again with minimal conversion while still being able to use the new books.

So check it out. It's a great system and lots of fun.

 

[Set]

If I went back to 2e it would be for one of the following five reasons;

1) Al-Qadim (I love *everything* about this setting, but particularly the Sha'ir kit)

2) Kara-Tur (also, much love for lots of stuff, both in OA and the Kara-Tur boxed set)

3) Spelljammer (yes, I played a gnomish giant space werehamster. Wanna make something of it?)

4) Forgotten Realms (pre-Time of Troubles, with my second favorite kit, the Totem-Sister from Elves of Evermeet)

5) The premature release of 4e.

 

[Treebore]

I believe the 3rd printing fo the PH is already available, at least straight from TLG. I don't think it has had time to trickle through the book trade channels.

Plus if you like glossy the new print run is glossy and about 1/8th of an inch thinner in overall thickness.

So if your in no hurry I would wait until you get the 3rd printing, plus it has the new poison charts that are taking a very different approach on pricing and naming.

The second print of Monsters and Treasures is at the printers and should start being distributed in July.

All errata and errors were corrected as well. In both books.

 

[Thurbane]

the 3e philosophy of "balance" which sacrifices the flavor of the setting

With this I agree 110% - as much as I do enjoy 3.5, and appreciate how "tight" the ruleset is, the holy altar of ultimate balance approach seems to stifle a lot in the way of flavor.

Heck, WotC regularly get crucified over the multiclassing limits of Monks and Paladins...how dare they have rules that exist for flavor reasons, instead of the cold, hard Vulcan logic of game balance!

 

[Fifth Element]

5) The premature release of 4e.

Hmm...that doesn't really make sense. Do you mean you would go back to 2e to stick it to Wizards? When they release they'll no longer support 3e, so it makes no difference to go back to 2e.

Depending on what happens with the OGL for 4e, third-party publishers might still support 3e, and if everyone went back to 2e it would only hurt these publishers, maybe drive most of them out of business, and thereby remove some competition for Wizards. Producing the opposite effect of sticking it to them.

Just rambling on, none of that makes sense, really.

 

[TerraDave]

If you like 3ed. Stay with 3ed.

And get people on enworld to help you convert. They will. or at least sing your praises when you do it yourself.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

This just isn't true. The flexibility is in the hands of the GM.

Meaning the system ISN'T flexible. It may be easily modded, but it cannot handle a wide range of concepts out of the box.

In other words, like AD&D, but with fewer supplements and a smoother core mechanic. That may be fine for you, but I absolutely despise this model. I've never seen a game I COULDN'T houserule; I've seen plenty I NEEDED to houserule (C&C would be one such), and a handful I didn't feel any DESIRE to houserule.

The last being the cream of the crop, design wise.

1.) You can change the challenge base to make a more heroic(lower it) or less heroic(increase it) game.

Which is true of essentially any game.

2.) Numerous versions of multiclassing rules are on the internet.

Which each individual GM will or will not allow to taste. The ones I've seen are not at all satisfactory to me, but I'll admit to not having looked at them for some time; they may have gotten better.

3.) There is a set of skill rules found on the Troll Lords site and in the Yggsburgh book.

Which each individual GM will or will not allow to taste. And, in general, will lead to LESS rather than MORE flexibility by shoehorning characters into narrower niches.

4.) A netbook of new classes on Dragonsfoot.

Which each individual GM will or will not allow to taste. Also, 'new classes' doesn't sound terribly flexible in comparison to 'name a trait of your character, which then becomes one of your stats.'

5.) A netbook called Colin Sez with new races.

Which each individual GM will or will not allow to taste. Also, 'new races' doesn't sound terribly flexible in comparison to 'racial abilities are purchased from the same point pool as all other abilities, allowing you to dedicate as much or as little of your concept to your innate powers as you like.'

IMHO C&C starts simple and gives you the freedom to add as muc, or as little complexity as you want. The only reason I can see it for being labeled as "not flexible" is because

1.) You really feel you have to pay money for flexibility

Because paying for, say, the Mutants and Masterminds or Spirit of the Century core book is *much* more expensive than paying for the Castles and Crusades core book? Man, what? Heck, FATE is *free,* and a perfectly usable version of the SotC rules (though SotC is definitely improved over it).

2.) You don't want to or don't have time to use your, or others, creativity

Because there's certainly no creativity involved in, oh, I don't know, using a system where character attributes are essentially freeform (FATE) or in which they are chosen to taste from a reasonably balanced point system (M&M)?

I guess the latter doesn't count because the character options were professionally published (which renders them bereft of creativity, apparently), but the former?


Again, for the OP, C&C is almost certainly the simplest solution, because it's compatible with the wealth of 2e material out of the box. I can't tolerate the AD&Dishness of C&C (as opposed to the Dark Sun-ishness, the Ravenloft-ishness, etc.), but it's certainly the easiest way to use 2e material with an improved system.

It just annoys me to no end to hear a system that is explicitly inflexible, created in part as a reaction to the flexibility of D&D 3e, touted as flexible because "you can houserule it." Well, obviously - ANY system is infinitely* flexible by those standards, which makes those standards useless for establishing comparative flexibility.

* Or flexible to the limits of a hypothetical human GM's thought, which caps it at the outer limits of human comprehension.