3rd versus 2nd edition rules

Remove all ads!

seams everybody is doing research in this forum, so i'll try, too.

what do you prefer: 2nd or 3rd edition AD&D rules?

in my opinion 2nd edition rules are better, because the characters were specialized. in 3rd edition, you can have a lockpicking, spellcasting barbarian !?! the features are overrated, you just need one weapon skill and the rest is optional. theres just no challenge. every character can be trained to do everything. 2nd edition was "stylish", harder though but much more fun.
too me, 2nd edition was AD&D and 3rd edition is some mainstream system just designed to make the pc games easier, but thats just me, so whats your opinion?

 

Hi, welcome to the boards, a few things first.

Please read the forum rules and be careful with where you post a topic.

Check out the similar topics in the dungeon and dragons subsection.

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000411#000000

I prefer a mix of rules or my own

[ March 03, 2003, 16:56: Message edited by: Astin X ]

 

oops. hadn't even seen all the miscellaneous forums.
feel free to delete it, i'll post it in the rules section. the board tells me i'm not authorized to delete it myself.

 

I'm voting for 2E rules. No, I'm not going to say any more, I've argued this enough times

 

I find that each of the editions of the rules have had their own set of strengths and weaknesses. I am currently running a 3rd edition game and find that it is the one I prefer. It allows for more variations than any of the earlier editions and the rules are better defined than in 2nd edition. The main problem with 3rd edition may simply be in the fact that it needs to be finished. 2nd edition had reached the point where most every piece of information that a Player or DM wanted was contained in some manual. 3rd edition hasn't reached that point yet.

 

Personally I prefer 3rd edition. Much more freedom with races/classes. Of course this has it's advantages as well as it's disadvantages.

But overall? Definetely third edition.

 

It's true in 2E you can only be Classical caracter! but now you can have realy WHAT you want. Also you have More freedom, why can't a dwarf be a wizards!? I think 3E is better...

 

A dwarf can't be a wizard because in some persons perception, dwarves are anti magical. But it should depend on the world. That is why I prefer universal systems to D&D

 

3rd ed rules, cause it's easier to make the PCs how you want to.

 

second is still my favorite. I really don't like the fact that in third every one could be a paladin/monk/wizard. Also don't like the way magic is so easy to obtain. And even if you decided to use a 'pure' class, they will probably look the same, since all the 'neat' feats you want need a specific path to take in choosing your feats.

Still, there are enough stuff I really like in third, like bonus spells for everyone with the right stats. I've implemented this in my 2nd ed. campaign, giving the low-level mages a break. I also like the fact that all stats are relativly important, often enough in 2nd ed. there fighter characters whom put all of their high stats in STR, CON, DEX and in that order. the way you can locate 'bad' characters (total of stats bonus lower then 0) I've immediatly adopted to have no players unhappy with their characters. Bad things and good things in 3rd, but overall I still choose 2nd.

 

I'm an old First Edition guy, but now I play all editions. But, to answer the question, I prefer 2nd Edition over 3rd edition.

 

I really love 2nd edition for planescape, the one thing lacking from 3rd edition.

 

I think thunder has the right idea. I'm in a 3E campain and trying to start a 2E one. I like some of the stuff in 3E, but not all of it, and I take all sorts of stuff from 3E and put it in 2E, like bonus spells for wizards. I also like the gods (mainly since I don't like making my own). I also like the barbarian and sorcerer classes, and am taking thoses, too. But my farvorite set of rules? 2nd Edition.

 

I prefer the freedom of 3ed, because I can't have enough people to make a decent party in 2e we always are 3 or 4 people. So with 3ed one can be a sorcerer/rogue (a thief-spelcaster) and another a paladin/cleric (a tank-healer).

 

I look at it like this:

It's really a simple question of which is the lesser of two evils: overcomplexity or oversimplification?

2nd edition really covered its bases. You could pretty much find a rule for any situation. The problem with that is, do you really want to go fishing through the manuals for the rules on every situation? No, that detracts from the game.

3rd edition, however, has a problem with making things too basic. Sure, the rules are simple, concise, and easily read and even memorized. However, the new rules make it dangerously easy for a character to become a powerhouse.

Spells are where 2nd edition really kicks 3rd edition in the sacs. Spells in 3e are simple, utilitarian, and more like tools than anything else. 2e really made spells fun. Whereas 3e spells have very crisp, concise rules, 2e was purposely vague on many of the rules so that people would get creative. (Of course, much of this also depends on how strict your DM is.)

Overall, I prefer the ease of 3e (mainly for combat purposes; the longest a battle has taken in 3e was about an hour and a half--for 2e, our record still stands at four hours), but 2e does still hold some appeal for me.

I'm just scared to see a 4th Edition come out.