What is it about your selected RPG poison (specifically 2nd ed. vs. 3rd ed.) that draws you to it rather than to the other?
After having butted in so unceremoniously on so many threads and left the dung of my opinions scattered about to annoy and offend, I have a question. It’s not an official poll, so don’t look for any voting booths. If this topic has been covered too recently or too exhaustively, let me know and I’ll drop it; I’m just curious.
I’ve seen lots of references here to v3.0 & 3.5. I’ve played them both as player and DM…at least enough to know that I don’t like the d20 system. I guess I’m just too much of a stick in the mud, but I like my AD&D 2nd ed. just fine, thank you. I know I am among a dying breed. As we age, my generation is inevitably yielding the field to the younger set that never played 1st ed. D&D, let alone the original 2nd ed. (and all the follow-up material). I also recognize that v3.0/.5 have their merits and that they have as loyal an audience as any other RPG. Whether “Paranoia” or “Pendragon”, whether “Aftermath”, or “Merc”, whether “Tunnels and Trolls” or “Traveler” (yah, going back a bit there), every game has its fans. I just want to know why each of you prefers what you play most often.
If you could narrow it down to 2-3 specific points for brevity, I’d appreciate it, because I’m sure there will be a lot of posts and short posts makes for quicker reading.
Here are a couple examples, from my own reasons for preferring 2nd ed. over v3.0/.5.
1) 3rd edition went too much towards “comic-booking” the characters. There’s a feel to the mechanics that leave me feeling there’s not as much room for maneuvering that 2nd edition has. In 2nd ed. I don’t have to decide on a Prestige Class to grow up into and then have to begin selecting pre-requisite skills for it now. I can roll my own as I go and end up with a character whose skills are a history of his experiences in his world, not a declaration of the future he would like to have.
2) Reducing (or even removing) certain types of dice (d12, for example), removes a tool from my arsenal as a DM, forcing me to “improvise” with fewer bullets. Yeah, the d12 wasn’t used a lot, but it was used and I could come up with other uses than those pre-written into the system. This left me feeling as though the system were incomplete, washed out, thinly gilded base metal that would leave stains on my skins as soon as the veneer began to wear.
Thanks in advance for the input.
well; lot of my peeps are gonna stick with running their games in 2nd ed as they basically say they dont want to do any conversions as it would take to much work. I changed my game over from 1st ed to 2nd ed smoothly; but second ed to 3rd ed and a half; brought a lot of complaints and moaning and growning; the mages dont like magic now; the fighers hate the armor class rules and dont feel like they are effective because the mages kill everything even though they complain about the magic.
so,
we started over and everybody is 4th level now and happy in my same world playing 3.5 rules and everybody seems ok with it, but they want more skill points and more feats. Some classes gets skill points of 2 + int per level and some of 8 + int per level seems a bit unfair; but compared to first ed whereas you only had one nebulous skill; maybe, everyone is still ok with it; we all just wonder why there is so many books of stuff if you can only use so little of it in the real game making your character.
As a GM; there are several things I like about the new system; seems a bit more streamlined and I dont have to refer to so many charts anymore; though I practially had them memorized; and psionics in 1st and 2nd ed was problematic at best. We all like the open multiclassing options in 3.5 which is a step up; and the atribute stats is taking a lot of getting used to now that 25 is not the top of the scale or even really considered all that strong anymore; the most problematic thing seems to be judging cr levels and what the party can handle or not as there are so many game changing feats and sometimes monsters do a lot more or a lot less than I expected.
rules aside; we are all the same group and having a good time so I dont know that the rules really matter all that much; in both first and second ed people attained abilities that were much like todays feats so that hasn't really changes; 3.5 just has a lot more of everything; overwhelmingly so really. We are all suffering from overload.
oh; and 3.5 seems way power crazed to most of us; but we havent played that way before and it is all relative to scale so we are enjoying the change; i think going back to 2nd end would not cause even a small ripple, but would be like puttin on a favorite coat when its cold.
3.5 seems way power crazed to most of us
That's what I was thinking of when I said that 3+ seemed too Comic-booked for me. I'm from the old school where it took two years of regular gaming to get a character to 7th level or so. Exp was always tight, money tighter and most people were too busy hoarding the few magic items they had to "sacrifice" them for extra Exp. I guess that's called "weak magic worlds" now. But it certainly made things very challenging. These new rules pump things up to a level I always associated with the "Montey Haul" games that I detested. No challenge, no fun.
I've played both versions, and I by far prefer version 3.5. It's easier to teach, because everything is under the same rule mechanic. It's easier to make mechanically individual characters, more diverse foes, etc. I don't play with any real power gamers, but I'm sure there is room for min/maxing and power gaming in 2nd edition as well. Just my opinion.
Well, I've been playing since the late 70's so I started with the famous "blue book" (basic D&D), then went to AD&D, then to 2nd ed, then to 3rd ed and we are now finally starting to make the move to 3.5 ed (I wanted to make sure we got our money's worth on 3.0 before we moved on :-).
Quite simply, I like the tactical nature of the newer rules. We've always managed to find a way to get as much role playing into our games as we've wanted so I've never bought the argument that 3.0+ stifles role playing. But we all really like the tactical nature of combat. (We even included the option attack of opportunity into 2ed AD&D back when it was in one of the optional books - can't remember which one it was.)
As far as the comic book feel of advancement, well, I guess that's a "to each his own" kind of issue. My players like the rapid advancement. Although, truth be told, its not that rapid if you ask me. We've been playing the same characters for over 2 years now, and they are only in the 12 to 15th level range. (They've just finished Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.) For some of us, leveling up is just plain fun. And my players get a lot of enjoyment out of leveling up.
And I've always been fond of epic fantasy, so I try to take my games in a way that makes the players feel like they are really saving the world. So starting at 1st level and working your way up to 20th level to stop the big bad guy from destroying the world is what it's all about for me.
So I guess ours was exactly the type of group the playtesters were aiming at when they designed 3rd ed. Just enough leveling.
Greg
This is my first post here, so please be kind :-)
I've been involved in DM-ing AD&D, off and on, since I was in fifth grade...that's be 1984-ish, for the record. My parents bought me a set of the core AD&D 1st Edition hardcovers (DMG, PH, MM1, MM2) for Christmas that year, and I've been hooked ever since. I invested a good bit of money in 2E material, when it was launched, due to the fact that it was supposed to cut the dross from all the additional rules that had been unleashed in the years that followed the launch of 1E (Unearthed Arcana, Wilderness Survival Guide, et.al.). Over time, even 2E had a load of extras (Players Option, et cetera), and when the decision to bring out 3E (and then shortly thereafter 3.5), I decided against buying in again. I like the simplicity of 1E as it was what I started with, and I like the options of 2E.
When I DM, I run a bastardised version of 1E and 2E. My players don't mind...we discuss things out in terms of what I like to do, and if there are house rules that can be agreed upon for our campaigns, then they get added in.
Right now I'm prepping a run through the classic 1E Greyhawk modules, beginning in Hommlet and running as long as the PCs remain alive. It should be a fun run.
Director of Game Development
|
I enjoy the rule set of 3x ed and have been playing since the 80s. The d20 system is much more qualified to cover the more complex actions of a player and give a strong structural fall back to DMs to adjudicate the actions. I have a player that professes his love for 2e because, "In earlier editions you could do anything." That's just an excuse for someone to pull of something that the character couldn't really do just because the DM calls for a simple "dex check".
The rules in previous editions were spotty, more mathematically complex (read THAC0) and much more subject to "house rules". This to me reeks of inferiority. Many people that I have played with and talked to claim that they enjoyed the story and feel of earlier editions. I personally as a storyteller don't see how you can't have both strong rules-based guidelines and compelling story.
The short answer, I like 3.5 because I don't have to explain THAC0 to new people anymore. There's plenty of things I miss about second edition, but none of them are anything that can't be placed into the current rules. I miss Ravenloft and Darksun, I kinda miss Planescape, things like that. What I don't miss is clunky rules like THAC0, and set in the book limitations, like dwarves not being able to cast wizard spells, and elves not able to be a 20th level fighter.
One thing I find funny about conversations like this is the "I don't like how you have to choose a prestigue class at first level and work into it, selecting feats before you even get them...blahblahblah" Funny, every time I play the new rules no one jumps out of the PHB with a gun telling me to pick a prestigue class...I can play a rogue from first to 20th, with just as much thought (or lack there of) as I did in second.
I do agree that advancement seems to be a bit too fast...I don't mind it on first couple of levels (because back in 2nd edition playing 1st level wizard was only slightly more fun than putting toothpicks under your fingernails. "Your magic missile kills the goblin. Only 125 goblins to go until you can cast second magic missile per day!") but after that, levels zoom by too fast. I have for long planned to revise exp table from DMG, slashing exp gained on higher levels...
That said, 3.5 is an edition of D&D I actually enjoy playing. 2nd edition was cold towards us who wanted to play dwarf paladins or have bit more variety on fighters than decision between longsword+shield vs 2-handed sword...I was fond of the settings created for 2nd edition and was avid reader of Dragon but most of the time it was basically a question of what and how much I could steal to be used with other systems (RuneQuest, GURPS...).
There is a certain powergaming tendency in D&D 3.5 which I am not that fond of but so far it has been dealt with self-imposed limitations (ie. not playing like a powergamer).
As someone who's played D & D in all of its incarnations and who has jumped back into roleplaying after a long absence I would without a doubt say that 3.5 is the best version.
Reason 1: Tactically speaking the game is much more interesting than what went before. AoO, reach, movement rules that make sense. Much more interesting and far more logical.
Reason 2: In third edition I can make several different fighters (or any other class) and have each of them be different - the feat system really allows for the development and individuality of your characters. In first edition they were all the same.
Reason 3: Game mechanics that make sense. Third edition is much easier to teach than AD&D (although I still think the best intro is the old basic D & D red box).
Yes I would say characters level up too quickly, but this is easily fixed by simply bumping up the XP goals.
As for overpowered characters with endless magic items, it's the DM's job to limit that stuff. I do in my campaign - the characters are not walking around with AC's of 45 and they are making their way through the AOW just fine (19th level now).
I've played 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, Victory Games, Amber Diceless, Boot Hill (the original one with the rules that made no sense), Traveller (the old black boxed set), and a variety of hybrid systems. Doesn't really matter. The rules are just a framework to facilitate game play, but it's still the same game.
That said, I do find that 3.X e advancement is too fast for my taste (as compared with Victory Games 007 rules, in which it took place over geologic time scales). I also don't like the 3E multiple magic items as Christmas-tree adornments, without which you won't survive a single encounter. I've easily nerfed that in my homebrew campaign by ruling that the magic item owner must pay the xp costs for all his or her items. This slows advancement and makes people think twice about keeping too many trinkets. It's been a great "fix"--easy to implement and accomplishing both goals.
So far I've been using the Paizo APs as stand-alone campaigns, with above-mentioned rule in abeyance, to cut down on converting.
We play a mish mash of 1st edition rules with some 2nd edition adds ons as as I am DM 3rd edition adventures (Including some of the mighty adventures that are found in Dungeon Magazine)
Thats mainly because my players are tight have all the 1st edition manuals,( and we have been playing some of the same characters since the mid eighties off an on with breaks for colege, university and careers) and don't want to invest in new PHB's.
As they say they don't want to learn a new set of rules, they want to keep their characters as they are.
I myself would like to play 3.5 as I can see each character can be tinkered into an individual. In my campaign the clerics are just the same, the rangers are just the same and fighters are all the same.
The wide range of feats and skills give you lots of options, so you can pretty much tailor make a character whose style you want to play.
lessee, 2e/3.x
I go 3.x due to simplicity. The feats make the difference. I always found I was playing the same archetype in 2e. The big thing that 2e has over 3.x is the fact that 3.x has become a crunch fest. 2e always had better stories (Planescape, Forgotten Realms, just pick one).
So, in order to make up for this, one plays with a story minded group, not a "let's kill all the monsters & take their stuff" group. I play and DM in the Realms and a homebrew, and in all the games it's a blast due to being STORY oriented.
But, as usual, I digress. The 2 biggest reasons that I pick up 3.x are:
1. Rules mechanics are simple, and players can pick most anything from a given book to augment their character. It's also much easier to teach a new player what the mechanics are, and with the aid of minis, make combat move relatively smoother.
2. Let's face it, the rules are supported. Sure there's hackmaster & whatnot, but having a company (or a million of them) trying to work the rules to their fullest means that you have a great number of choices for your game.
Oh, since it seems we're name dropping our old games:
WEG Starwars, WotC Starwars, White Wolf's OLD WOD, the new WoD, Earthdawn, Shadowrun (3e, 1 4e adventure), and spycraft 2.0. This is in addition to 2e D&D (Box set from '92-93, Planescape, FR, Greyhawk, and Dragonlance), 3.0 D&D, and 3.5 D&D (All realms & Planescape).
So, that about covers it.
/d
Well I've been playing D&D since 1947 (the granite box set) and I have to say that 0th edition was by far the worst. You could only play a gnome fighter/wizard named Elmont and all rolls were off a d6. What's more, your character didn't advance unless you bought chocolate "dragon tongue" bars from TSR. You'd then answer each wrapper's quiz question and every 100 you sent back in with correct answers would buy your character a level.
I knew this one kid who made it to 20th level Elmont but he'd become so candy fat in getting there that he fell asleep under his own suffocating manboobs and passed away tragically. As was all the rage back in the late 40's, his grieving mother had him stuffed. You can still see him mounted in the main lobby of the WotC offices.
All this talk of the past sure gives me a hankering for a chocolatey forked dragon tongue.
Well I've been playing D&D since 1947 (the granite box set) and I have to say that 0th edition was by far the worst. You could only play a gnome fighter/wizard named Elmont and all rolls were off a d6. What's more, your character didn't advance unless you bought chocolate "dragon tongue" bars from TSR. You'd then answer each wrapper's quiz question and every 100 you sent back in with correct answers would buy your character a level.
As always, Jade, you've distilled the essence of your point into a set of deceptively amusing pithy phrases. Total respects!
I play in a heavily houseruled 2nd Ed game and GM a 3.5 game.
2e makes it easier to implement house rules, as there are a lot of areas not covered, and the rules consist of several rule mechanics independent of each other. OTOH, 2e has clunky rules in abundance - multiclassing/dual-classing, impractical and useless proficiencies that don´t reflect "reality" appropriately, odd weapon spec. rules (3 attacks in 2 rounds?), and overall mix-and-match rules which are a nightmare to remember. (Turning Undead, Saving throws against what?)
3.x has a lot of rules defining pretty much everything, and has the charm of a consistent rules system. And there is a lot more flexibility in character building, and having your ideas reflected by the rules.
OTOH, the rules try to cover everything imaginable (can you spell Rolemaster?), and the rules are heavily interdependent, and not easily changed.
I tend to view these two rulesets very independent from each other - try to compare a 70ies movie (e.g. Star Wars) to things like matrix or x-men. All are movies, but that´s about all they have in common. You have to view them from the context of their time to do them justice. That is not to say that the older versions are no longer valid, but instead have huge differences which endear them to different audiences - or different moods of the audience, as the case may be.
Stefan
Well, with my fiancee sitting here next to me in her VERY fun second ed game, I'm goign to risk being kicked in the shins here and say that I prefer third edition. It's more streamlined, more sensible and overall more enjoyable. YES, I have a problem with the high magic worlds and I am working on a campaign setting that has substantially less than FR or Eberron but more than, say, Iron Kingdoms.
|
A few thoughts.
I think that most people who still play 1st/2nd edition(s) have ultimately developed a home-brew version that works very well for them and they are of the mind-set "if it ain't broke -- don't fix it".
I also think that for many of us that had played 1st/2nd edition, but now play 3.X felt that it was "broke" and needed "fixing".
Limiting it to two reasons I really like 3.X --
1) Options. While it is possible to have unbalanced prestige classes, feats, and possibly spells, I feel that the balance is there, the rules are relatively solid and followed, and there is enough out there to keep even the most ambitious character creator happy.
2) Simple. I can get a new person started into the game without much explanation of the mechanics or the rules. THAC0 is an archaic concept and unnecessary (I can do it, but if you don't have to -- why?). You always want to roll high. There are only 3 types of saves. You roll a d20 for nearly everything, so a new person doesn't need to ask what die to roll or if they want high or low.
That is probably the biggest two things for me -- the number of options to customize a character and the simplicity of expaining the rules to new people.
As always, Jade, you've distilled the essence of your point into a set of deceptively amusing pithy phrases. Total respects!
And as always you are kind, generous and oh so observant. Thank you, Kirth.
A few thoughts.
I think that most people who still play 1st/2nd edition(s) have ultimately developed a home-brew version that works very well for them and they are of the mind-set "if it ain't broke -- don't fix it".
Bingo, that's me in a nutshell.
What I would like to do is find someone nearby who has some of the 3.5E books who'll allow me to borrow the core rules books for a weekend for me to digest. IT may change my mind, who knows. I just know I'm very happy with the modified 1E/2E we run...not too fast in terms of leveling, not too slow, reasonable amount of challenge with the occasional twist tossed in to keep the players realising that they are part of something far bigger than they are. In time they may discover it. They may not. It's a lot of give and take, and we all enjoy it.
Welcome, and don't worry, this is by far the nicest gamer board that you could have found to post on.This is my first post here, so please be kind :-)
Thanks, mate. Much appreciated. I lucked into finding this site last night, and it may well become my homepage soon :-)
I know I am among a dying breed. As we age, my generation is inevitably yielding the field to the younger set that never played 1st ed. D&D, let alone the original 2nd ed. (and all the follow-up material).
Well, I've been playing since 1st edition, and I definitely prefer 3.x to the earlier versions. The races and classes are better balanced, the rules are more sensible and elegant...it is simply, in every way that matters to me, a superior game.
I started with 1st edition.
Transitioned to 2nd edition.
Long absence…
3rd and 3.5 came out.
Playing again… playing 1st edition.
And happy.
Why should I invest in new books?
Second edition I view as the heyday of campaign settings - so much creative stuff came out of that era that is still viable and good that mechanics aren't an issue (to me, at any rate).
I prefer running a game in third edition. Second edition DMing was a nightmare to me, as I never could get the whole THAC0 thing figured out, or why saving throws were so weird, do I need to roll high or low for X and Y, etc etc.
As I see it to this point then, the majority of those who prefer 3x do so because they had "problems" with the older systems that the newer one seems to correct or at least smooth out, while those who prefer pre-3 are generally happy with what they've got and don't care to either invest more money into something new, don't want the hassle of learning new rules or (like me) are just sticks in the mud and don't like change in general... (lol)
Any way, I get the gist. I seems that, like any other product (RPG or otherwise) it's strictly a matter of individual taste and preferences. I like corn and peas, will eat broccoli if there's enough cheese on it to drown Aquaman and wouldn't touch brussle sprouts with a 12-ft Hungarian, let alone a 10-foot Pole! My gameing is the same; I've tried the new stuff and found that I don't care to move on.
Thanks for the input folks...very enlightening and no small amount of entertaining....
granite edition, indeed,...humph!
:)
Regarding the type of dice used - the d12 is still in use in 3.5, but mainly by barbarians, who roll it for hit points and greataxe damage rolls. Matter of fact, I as DM rolled it last night when Kullen the half-orc decided his sister had to die. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief when I rolled a 1 on the damage... until I announced that that totalled to 13, dropping his sister (a 2nd level wizard) to -5. (*evil DM grin*)
At any rate:
3.5, in my opinion, has more advantages over 2nd edition than disadvantages. The drawback compared to 2nd edition, as such, is that there are more options. Where before a mind flayer, pixie, or centaur would be only in the purview of the DM, now the DM has to worry about what sort of crazy ideas the players will come up with. This can be overwhelming. Metagaming is more prevalent (I think), since the rules are applied universally - the players now understand how monsters work even if they aren't DMs. Power creep is also a factor, though this has always happened (Player's Option: Skills and Powers anyone?)
The advantages are: Rolling high is always a good thing; a d20 is used for everything except hit points and damage rolls; the combat rules make more sense; with codified skill rules, combat does not have to be the focus; experience calculation is SO much easier (it takes your current level x 1000 xp to get to the next level); and finally, there are more options. As long as the DM keeps in mind that these are options (and that he has the say over what characters are allowed in his game), it can exand the horizons of the game dramatically, while keeping a sense of balance and fairness.
I have 26 years of D&D experience behind me. 1st edition I was there. 2nd edition, I was there. I had loads of fun playing the earlier editions. But in my opinion 3.x editions are way better.
Third edition has been easier to teach, easier to resolve sticky unforetold situations and easier to run. As much fun I have had with earlier editions, I find playing 3rd edtion is funner, especially as a PC.
I've played 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition. The difference between 1 and 2nd editions, is not significant. The difference between 2nd and 3rd edition, very significant. I might play a 2nd edition game as a player. As a Dm I'm never going back. Five or six years ago I converted a lot of 2nd edition hold outs that would "never play 3rd edition."
Simply, third edition is better and an improvement on 2nd edition.
|
And - the thief got 1 xp for every piece of gold that the party found! So, not only did he advance faster, he also got waaaay more xp...
I've gone through all the editions, and I don't miss a thing from the 1st and 2nd editions. Some choice complaints about the bad old days (beyond THAC0 and the silly saving throw tables) would include that too much was dependent on initial character creation die rolls - high rolls gave access to classes (Ranger, Druid and, especially, Paladin) that were just plain better than the basic Fighter or Cleric, as well as arbitrary crap like that nonhumans can't be Paladins and awarding xp for stumbling upon magical items. 3.x is internally consistent, flexible and easy to use, and that's all a ruleset really can aspire to be.
One thing puzzles me - why is the existence of campaign settings like FG, Planescape or Spelljammer proof that 2nd edition was good? Both Dragon and Dungeon are better than ever - is this due to game mechanics, or is it because they have great writers? Obviously, it is the latter - if the writers of yore had used the d20 rules when creating their game worlds, they wouldn't be any different (though they could have explained how all those magical items had come about).
One more thing I will gripe about in 3.X -- "battlemats" and "minis." I do not play with dolls. I refuse to shell out for "pig in a poke" boxes of plastic figures that I won't even have the satisfaction of painting because it's already been done. In 1e, we'd order some lead figurines from a catalogue because they looked cool, then we'd spend hours custom painting them, then set them on the table in a rough approximation of the "marching order" and forget about them. Younger siblings would occasionally try to eat them.
The only thing I miss about earlier editions is that the thief progressed faster, was nearly the only one who could use the really useful skills and my percentile dice, to this day, rock immensely.
Yeah I liked thieves abilities and using my percentile dice. The thief usually got a posse before the other character classes.
When a wizard is just gaining his stride as spellcaster with fireballs, a thief is already got a guild going.
I read the Castles & Crusades player's handbook late last year and I think it's the perfect blend of 1st edition AD&D and 3.5....kind of the best of both worlds. It's nice, I like it.....haven't played it yet, but I can tell it would be FAST to play, with not that much math, which really annoys me about 3.5 at higher level play.
You know what has remained the same from 1st edition through 2nd edition and right into 3.5 D&D?
Having an armor class of 10 still sucks.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
20th level demihumans of any class.
Okay I'm a big fan of 3.5, for me it is every bit as flexible if not more so than any of the previous editions.
In addition to all the character options I prefer having players make skill checks (trained or untrained) to ability checks. In actual play it is much the same but allows for characters to be unique and still heroic.
3.5, in my opinion, has more advantages over 2nd edition than disadvantages. The drawback compared to 2nd edition, as such, is that there are more options. Where before a mind flayer, pixie, or centaur would be only in the purview of the DM, now the DM has to worry about what sort of crazy ideas the players will come up with. This can be overwhelming. Metagaming is more prevalent (I think), since the rules are applied universally - the players now understand how monsters work even if they aren't DMs. Power creep is also a factor, though this has always happened (Player's Option: Skills and Powers anyone?)
How about Kits from the brown Complete X books? Before Skills and Powers 2nd ed had serious power creep issues. Some players I know complain that 3.x has too much power creep particuarly in prestige classes but at least Pretige Classes have entry requirements.
I enjoyed playing in the previous editions but I prefer the new system.
3.5 seems way power crazed to most of usThat's what I was thinking of when I said that 3+ seemed too Comic-booked for me. I'm from the old school where it took two years of regular gaming to get a character to 7th level or so. Exp was always tight, money tighter and most people were too busy hoarding the few magic items they had to "sacrifice" them for extra Exp. I guess that's called "weak magic worlds" now. But it certainly made things very challenging. These new rules pump things up to a level I always associated with the "Montey Haul" games that I detested. No challenge, no fun.
I disagree the challenge is still thier if the dm is challenging.
The faster rate of progression works for me. I don't have the time to play eight hours straight, two or three times a week. I may have the time to play 3-4 hours, maybe once a week. At this rate, it has taken my PCs 2 years to reach ninth level. This is the highest level game in our group. These are the highest level characters I have Dmed since playing third edition. Oh and the game is fun.
I like that I can actually play a first level spell caster. Let's face it 1st edition you had ONE spell thats it. 2nd edition if you specialized you could have two spells at first level. So two spells your load is blown and you grab your dagger and darts, then hope nobody notices you. A 3rd edition 1st level wizard has minimum of 4 spells and most will have the intelligence to cast five spells at first level. You can actually rely on your spells through out a first adventure.
The only thing I dont like as much is that I have to take WAY longer to prep as a GM for 3.5 rules than I did for 2e rules. And if I was running it off the cuff during a 2e game, there was a lot less chance my PCs would notice. The necessity of the battlemat in 3e makes this a bit more obvious.
Indeed, improvising is more difficult in 3.x. Remember 2nd Ed. adventures, where you might find a notation like that: Orc, AC 4, 5 hp, D 1-8, and that was all to it? Nowadays, you have a stat block that puts any math geek to shame. The very interdependent rules system makes it somewhat problematic to run things off the cuff.
But one thing that is positive is that the new rules are easier to translate into a digital format - heroforge is an excellent helper for DMs, creating NPCs is very easy with it and saves a lot of time.
Stefan
Thanks, mate. Much appreciated. I lucked into finding this site last night, and it may well become my homepage soon :-)Welcome, and don't worry, this is by far the nicest gamer board that you could have found to post on.This is my first post here, so please be kind :-)
I can only second Daigle there. This board is generally nice, and if you ask for advice, the regulars here are more than happy to offer their polite opinion.
Stefan
|
|
...and my percentile dice, to this day, rock immensely.
Yeah I liked thieves abilities and using my percentile dice.
I hated percentile rolls for characters. You could have adamantine bars and the wizard with the 6 Str had a chance to bend them, while the fighter with the magically enhanced 20 Str had a chance to fail bending aluminum bars. And the number of people that died in our group due to system shock who had insane Con scores was simply silly.
If you could narrow it down to 2-3 specific points for brevity, I’d appreciate it
We play 2nd ed because...
1) Before 3.0 came out, we had spent extensive time in stripping down the 2e rules into something that was fast, slick, and didn't have a bunch of modifiers getting in the way of the story. I hate modifiers. 3.0 and 3.5 just looked to us like a pack of new modifiers for us to throw out. (and when I hear DMs on the boards talking about it taking an hour or more just to write up the STATS on a high level NPC, I'm even MORE glad I didn't switch!)
2) In our 2e, we also had extensive options for player races and while we didn't change the core classes (at that time... we have a few new ones now), we had a wide variety of how those classes could develop (sort of akin to prestige classes, just more via role play than stats). So 3.0/5 was just buying new books to do what we were already doing.
3) I came up with a relatively quick conversion method for taking Dungeon adventures in 3.5 and switching them to our 2e. Don't know that it would work for folks playing by the book 2e, but given that our play style is pretty high powered compared to RAW AD&D, it balances just fine with the power boosts that came with 3.0/5. So again, no need to switch our rules to enjoy the new stuff that's coming out.
...and my percentile dice, to this day, rock immensely.Yeah I liked thieves abilities and using my percentile dice.I hated percentile rolls for characters. You could have adamantine bars and the wizard with the 6 Str had a chance to bend them, while the fighter with the magically enhanced 20 Str had a chance to fail bending aluminum bars. And the number of people that died in our group due to system shock who had insane Con scores was simply silly.
I still like my percentile dice. In the earlier editions thief abilities seemed special because of them.
Right now I'm prepping a run through the classic 1E Greyhawk modules, beginning in Hommlet and running as long as the PCs remain alive. It should be a fun run.
Oh, how I would love to play in that campaign!!!!! The only problem is that I know most of those modules by heart....gotta wait until senility kicks in and I'm rolling my polyhedral dice while confined to a wheelchair and a diaper.
I play 3.0 because I never played any earlier editions and my players when given the choice of going to 3.5 or staying with 3.0 decided to stay and so that what I've largely stuck with. I do however get a lot of inspiration and fluff from 2e material.
I have and still play both. My prefrence for either as a DM or player though is 2ed. I do not in the foreseeble future see myself ever running another 3.0 or 3.5. I have to many problems with the system to want to run. I can deal with them enough to play. In my personal opinon though they should not be refered to as 3rd or 3.5 editions though, they are d20 Dungeon and Dragons. I'll come back when I have enough time to actually lay it out.
1) 3rd edition went too much towards “comic-booking” the characters. There’s a feel to the mechanics that leave me feeling there’s not as much room for maneuvering that 2nd edition has. In 2nd ed. I don’t have to decide on a Prestige Class to grow up into and then have to begin selecting pre-requisite skills for it now. I can roll my own as I go and end up with a character whose skills are a history of his experiences in his world, not a declaration of the future he would like to have.
2) Reducing (or even removing) certain types of dice (d12, for example), removes a tool from my arsenal as a DM, forcing me to “improvise” with fewer bullets. Yeah, the d12 wasn’t used a lot, but it was used and I could come up with other uses than those pre-written into the system. This left me feeling as though the system were incomplete, washed out, thinly gilded base metal that would leave stains on my skins as soon as the veneer began to wear.
1. I don't have a problem with comic-type games. If I ever decided that I wanted a slower advancement, I'd just give less XP and treasure. On the boards (especially WotC), there's a lot of talk about planning your character from 1 to 20 but in reality I've never played with anyone who actually did it, other than myself. And I plan characters for their flavor, not to milk all the power out of them that I can...which involves playing a class from 1 to 20 more often than multiclassing.
2. I'm not sure what your point is about the d12. Sure, it sees limited use but I don't mind. It's like the dice have feelings. If I want to use a d12 for a certain situation, I use it...no biggie.
3. In the end, I like 3rd edition because it's the best I've seen. It has relatively simple and consistent mechanics, for the most part, and those that I don't like I can houserule *cough* turning *cough*. It's flexible, and yet defined in just about the right balance.
Oh, how I would love to play in that campaign!!!!! The only problem is that I know most of those modules by heart....gotta wait until senility kicks in and I'm rolling my polyhedral dice while confined to a wheelchair and a diaper.
Right now I'm prepping a run through the classic 1E Greyhawk modules, beginning in Hommlet and running as long as the PCs remain alive. It should be a fun run.
We'll just try for a backstab/subdue on you, hoping that the knock to your head gives you temporary loss of the memories of those modules :-)
Sunday night, the campaign begins...
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
To me, this is like asking "do you watch tv or listen to radio programs?" The "benefit" of 2e as far as I can see is that the rules are so bad, you have to rely on imagination more and mechanics less. The nature of 3e encourages the players to learn the rules and manipulate them to their advantage; those tactics don't work in 2e where the rules are largely a product of individual DM fiat.
Similarly, before tv, people listened to radio programs. I'm sure that when tv came out, they complained about how they used to imagine what the Lone Ranger looked like, and now they had to suffer though whichever actor portrayed the character. It's not necessarily that tv is "better" than a radio program, but the medium is friendlier to a broader range of stories. Similarly, 3e is friendlier to a broader range of gaming styles, ranging from a mechanistic approach to a more story-based 2e style.
Plus, at the end of the day, you can still run your old 2e style game using the 3e ruleset. The reverse cannot be said; the 2e rules will not support a mechanistic, balanced, 3e style game.